Orders of the Day

Marine Wildlife Conservation Bill

As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.

New Clause 1
	 — 
	Sustainable development

' In the exercise of any function under this Act a person or body must have regard to the desirability of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development.'.—[Mr. Meacher.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Michael Meacher: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
	It genuinely gives me great pleasure to be present for the Report stage of this Bill, promoted by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall). I offer him my congratulations—as I did on Second Reading and in Committee—on bringing the Bill so far.
	As I outlined in Committee, legislation for the marine environment is a complex matter. In addition to the important issues of conserving nationally important species and habitats, a wide range of other interests need to be taken into account in any legislation. The amendments proposed by the Government strike the right balance; they will protect the marine environment while taking into account other legitimate interests and users of the sea.
	It is thus appropriate that the new clause concerns the application of the principles of sustainable development. The provision sets out a responsibility for the nature conservation bodies, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the National Assembly for Wales and any other bodies exercising functions under the Bill to take proper account of the need to achieve sustainable development.
	The need for sustainable development is central to all Government policy. In May 1999, the Government published "A better quality of life: a strategy for sustainable development for the United Kingdom", which brought the environment, social progress and the economy alongside each other at the heart of policy making.
	Achieving sustainable development is all about recognising, evaluating and taking into account the costs and benefits of actions on the economy, the environment and people's livelihoods. The application can sometimes be fraught, but that is the principle. The new clause would ensure that such a balance was struck when any bodies exercising functions under the Bill made decisions that could affect nationally important species and habitats.
	Many activities, such as shipping, fishing, offshore minerals exploitation, sustainable energy and coastal zone development make use of our seas and shores. The new clause would ensure that, where those activities affect protected sites, Departments and other bodies carrying out their functions under the Bill—such as establishing management schemes or confirming site notifications—will have regard to the benefits of permitting sustainable use of marine resources and other social and economic uses of the site, as well as securing the conservation of the marine environment.
	The new clause would help to ensure that protected sites will not lead to a series of no-go areas for development. In the confirmation of sites, in giving advice to competent marine authorities about potentially damaging operations, in making byelaws and in establishing management schemes, it is important to act proportionately. I realise that not every measure to protect marine sites will be justifiable when all sustainable development objectives are taken into account. However, in the marine environment we are dealing with risks in areas where our knowledge of the likelihood of impact is limited or where there is continuing scientific uncertainty. Therefore, we will need to adopt a precautionary approach that is consistent and in line with the Nice European Council resolution on the precautionary principle. That is very important.
	We believe that the inclusion of the clause would introduce a degree of consistency between the process of selection for sites under the Bill and that for sites of special scientific interest on land. I shall repeat those words several times this morning, if I catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. For the confirmation of sites on land, the conservation agency is placed under a duty by section 37 of the Countryside Act 1968 to have
	"due regard to the needs of agriculture and forestry and to the economic and social interests of rural areas."
	The clause would ensure that similar concerns relating to the marine environment are taken into account.

John Randall: I thank the Minister and his Department for the constructive way in which they have examined the Bill and tabled helpful amendments and new clauses. However, I require confirmation of a few matters relating to one or two of them. On the new clause, can the Minister confirm that the proposed duty to have regard to the desirability of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development would not lead to nature conservation interests' being overridden by other interests? Secondly, if a marine site of special interest was notified and a development issue subsequently arose on that site, would the proposed development influence the decision whether to confirm the marine site of special interest?
	If the Minister would satisfy me on those two points, I should be happy to accept the new clause.

Gareth Thomas: I, too, welcome the new clause because, as the Minister says, it places on all competent marine authorities, when carrying out any function under the Bill, a duty to have regard to the desirability of achieving sustainable development.
	I have a long-standing interest in the potential of the renewable energy industries to contribute to our nation's efforts to achieve sustainable development. I have had some concerns about the Bill's potential for creating an extra hoop for the wind industry to jump through. I believe that the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) recognised the concerns of the wind energy industry and I know that since Second Reading he has met the British Wind Energy Association to seek to provide additional reassurance, but I believe that the clause will assist, in that it will help to ensure that genuine, sensible economic development can still take place in the right circumstances, in suitably protected marine sites of special interest.
	I did not hear the Minister make any specific reference to the offshore wind industry and I hope that when he replies to the debate he might allude in a little more detail to how the clause would provide additional protection against further delays in considering consents for offshore wind farms to go ahead. I say that against a backdrop of some concern in our country about whether we shall meet our CO 2 reduction targets for 2010.
	I know that the Minister has heard of the survey by Cambridge Econometrics, published on 4 February, which implied that if current trends from 2000-01 were to continue, by 2010 CO 2 emissions would be only about 6.5 per cent. below 1990 levels. There is a concern that if the sustainable energy industry, such as offshore wind generation, is not helped to grow, our wider CO 2 emission targets might not be achieved. I am sure that the whole House would recognise that that would be a tragedy. The potential for the Bill to place that extra hoop—that extra delay—on the consents process for offshore wind sites is a concern of the industry and should be addressed.
	Will the Minister be able to guarantee that when the sites are being designated there will be a consultation process with the offshore wind industry? When sites of special scientific interest—the land-based equivalent of MSSIs—are designated, the selected area must contain more than 1 per cent. of the British population of a specific species. On Second Reading I flagged up the concern of the British Wind Energy Association that many of the identified 18 offshore wind farm sites—the list was compiled just before the last general election—fall within areas that could conceivably be designated as marine sites of scientific interest. Members of the wind energy industry will have to collect data on much of the marine environment before a bid for an offshore farm can be granted and they are concerned that, because of the lack of data about the wider marine environment, a site might be deemed to be a very important marine site of scientific interest and therefore an application for a offshore wind farm would be denied.
	Can the Minister tell me what the clause could do to help on carbon capture and sequestration? He will know from his involvement in the recently published energy review that there is growing industrial interest in removing carbon dioxide from fossil fuels before they are released into the atmosphere—sequestering the carbon in deep repositories so that it is locked up and is not released into the atmosphere. That process offers a series of benefits to the coal industry and other fossil fuel industries, enabling them to continue to produce and to provide jobs for this country while not continuing to damage the environment.
	Two necessary steps have been identified for carbon capture and sequestration. First, the carbon dioxide must be captured; then it must be transported to a geologically appropriate repository. I raise that issue at this stage because the United Kingdom has many potential CO 2 repositories under the bed of the North sea, so there is a concern that the Bill might, down the line, stop sensible development of carbon capture and sequestration. I realise that there is a need for research and investigation in other forums on whether carbon capture and sequestration can genuinely help the achievement of our carbon dioxide targets, but I hope that the Minister can give some reassurance that the Bill will not build that additional delay into the system. That would cause problems.
	I welcome the new clause; it is a sensible addition to the Bill. I believe that much further work is necessary by the Minister's Department and the Department of Trade and Industry to reduce the time that the planning system requires for consideration of wind energy sites both on land and offshore, and I seek an assurance that, just as we have begun to shorten the likely time scales for granting an application, the consents process for offshore wind energy sites will not suddenly be extended by the Bill. I believe that the clause may help in that regard but I seek reassurance from the Minister to that effect.

Desmond Swayne: I seek reassurance from the Minister about what I perceive to be some of the nuances implicit in the new clause. For example, the right hon. Gentleman mentioned the legislative provisions that pertain to SSSIs and national parks. He will be aware that his Department is dealing with the order to designate a large part of my constituency as a national park. He quoted the law pertaining to that, which says that due regard has to be taken of the needs of agriculture, forestry, economic and social interests of the area. In the new clause, the maritime equivalent of that provision is that account should be taken of sustainable development.
	Will the Minister confirm that he includes in sustainable development the maintenance of high and stable levels of economic growth? That concept comes from "Achieving a better quality of life: Review of progress towards sustainable development" in the Government's annual report 2000, and it seems to involve a rather stronger requirement than that used in the legislation that relates to land.
	There is another significant difference between the Countryside Act 1968, to which the Minister referred, and the new clause. That Act, as amended by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, states:
	"it shall be the duty of every Minister, and of the Agency, the Council, English Nature and the local authorities to have due regard to certain things."
	The right hon. Gentleman's new clause would merely require them to "have regard to". The word "due" implies the need for a balance; leaving it out implies an imperative. Am I seeing a conspiracy where none exists? Am I placing too much emphasis on the word "due"? I ask for the Minister's reassurance.

David Heath: I come new to the Bill, not having had the opportunity to serve on the Standing Committee, but, as the Minister knows, I do not come new to the subject, having debated it at length during the passage of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 and having promoted thoughts similar to those of the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall), whom I congratulate on having brought his Bill this far. I also congratulate the Minister on the amendments that he has tabled, which clearly show a constructive attitude to the Bill. I do not intend speak at length today because I want to ensure that we consider the various amendments before us so that the Bill can make further progress.
	I understand some of the rationale behind the new clause; it is roughly analogous to the equivalent provisions in the arrangements for the notification of SSSIs on land. I share the view of the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) that the principal objective must surely relate to sustainable energy production at sea, and I should be grateful to the Minister if he would confirm that in relation not only to producing energy from offshore wind, but to the other means of producing energy at sea that may exist.
	Clearly, a balance often has to be found between competing environmental protection measures, irrespective of whether we are talking about species protection—which is, in essence, what we discussing in the Bill—or about other environmental protection issues and encouraging sustainability.
	We shall return to this issue later, but I hope that clear guidance will be given on how this new clause and others should be interpreted by the competent marine authorities, the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales. For example, I should be interested to know how the Bill will apply to artificial reefs, which may also be considered in this respect. So long as we do not lose the spirit of species conservation that is inherent in the Bill and the protection of SSSIs in the interests of general development, which should take place only if there is a clear environmental advantage and that balance has been properly assessed by the competent authorities, there seems to be no reason why we should not accept the new clause.

Sydney Chapman: I shall speak for just a few moments. I welcome the new clause, with the caveat mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall). I understand all too readily the need and the importance of meeting a high proportion of our electricity generation requirements from renewable energy sources, including wind energy.
	As chairman of the sustainable development committee of the 43-country Council of Europe, I know that it is carefully considering the problems of ensuring sustainable development, which is vital to the future of our planet. There can be sustainable development arguments on both sides of any environmental issue. Therefore, to echo the words of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), close consultation and careful analysis are vital before resolving such matters one way or the other.

Gareth Thomas: I had not known of the hon. Gentleman's role in the Council of Europe. Is he aware that the Minister for Industry and Energy, when speaking at a parliamentary renewable and sustainable energy seminar just 10 days ago, highlighted the fact that two thirds of onshore wind energy projects granted funding under the non-fossil fuel obligation have not gone ahead because the planning applications have been rejected? Should not that provide a powerful caution for us when considering the implications for offshore wind or wave and tidal power, to which the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) alluded?

Sydney Chapman: Unfortunately, I was unable to attend that meeting and I was not aware that two thirds of planning applications for onshore projects had been rejected. We will need to provide every possible encouragement to renewable forms of energy if we are to meet the target, to which the Government are committed, of 10 per cent. of our electricity needs coming from renewable sources by 2010. The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point.
	I conclude by simply reiterating that sustainable development policies are essential. Sometimes, there are good reasons on both sides of an argument when assessing the environmental needs, and we must be very careful and intelligent, and adopt a joined-up approach to the decisions that we will have to take.

Michael Meacher: There is general agreement on both sides of the House about the importance of sustainable development. I was asked how exactly that concept will be applied, which is not an easy matter to consider, but I shall try to provide the assurances that were requested.
	The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) asked whether the nature conservation interests would be overridden if a development issue arose on a site before the notification was confirmed. The answer is that the notification of the site will have identified features of special interest and that the confirmation of the notification will have regard to the wider interests of sustainable development.
	The important point is that the scientific value that the conservation body has identified will be of particular importance in that decision. Obviously, such decisions will have to be taken on a case-by-case basis, but I hope that that provides appropriate assurance. The identification of such a development interest will certainly not readily or automatically override the conservation interest. However, as in so many of these matters, it is all a question of making a judgment about the balance.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) raised some pertinent issues about offshore wind energy. Such issues are precisely why the new clause was introduced. Of course we recognise the importance of renewable energy considerations, which are of themselves of considerable environmental benefit, as the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) said. The need for offshore wind energy will be a major factor in deciding whether it is necessary to build wind farms in a marine site of special interest.
	I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West that there will be full consultation on the criteria for site selection, including with offshore wind energy bodies. I can confirm that in achieving our Kyoto targets, the development of renewables—in particular, both offshore and onshore wind energy—is important. The target is 10 per cent. by 2010. As we have achieved only 3 or 4 per cent. of that, we have a long way to go and wind is clearly an important factor.

Gareth Thomas: My right hon. Friend is obviously aware that the energy review recommends adopting a 20 per cent. target, which I hope will be accepted. Does he understand that the wind energy community is sensitive about the issue, partly because it recognises that we need to move away from the shallower sites that have been designated for wind energy farm development thus far to deeper waters, on which we have less marine data? That sensitivity is exacerbated by the fact that the Ministry of Defence has understandably ruled out areas that could be suitable for wind farm development because of the implications for radar.
	Although the wind energy community welcomes the new clause, will my right hon. Friend reassure it further that there will be detailed consultation on future development—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is an extremely long intervention. I think the Minister has got the drift.

Michael Meacher: I certainly have and I will try to make my answer shorter than the question.
	I am just as concerned about the development of offshore wind energy as I am about the conservation of genuine sites of national conservation interest. The question is how we achieve that, which is what the clause is all about. We acknowledge the sensitivities of the wind energy community, especially with regard to moving sites further offshore and to the decision by the Ministry of Defence. However, I believe that it is possible to reconcile the different interests, and we must try to do that. It is not a case of one interest overriding the other. We have a strong interest in wind energy in the United Kingdom. We have, I think, about 35 per cent. of potential wind energy generation within the European Union and we have exploited only a tiny proportion of that. It is in the interests of the Government and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs that that is developed further.

Tony Cunningham: In support of what my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) said, will the Minister bear in mind the problem caused by delaying the process? In the areas around my constituency, it is only possible to build a wind farm in the summer. A planning delay could put a scheme back 12 months because construction might not start until the following year. That is a serious issue.

Michael Meacher: I understand that, but it depends on when notification was made in the first place. I can give my hon. Friend the strong reassurance that the Government and the confirming authority—the Secretary of State—have no intention or desire to delay the process to secure procrastination. That is not in our mind at all.
	My response to the point raised by the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) is that we need to achieve a balance, a word that he used. Of course sustainable development includes high and stable levels of economic growth, but they should not be to the detriment of nature conservation. The key consideration is that we strike the correct balance. I recognise that it is easy to say that in the abstract. In those cases in which it is difficult to reconcile different interests, we have to make the best judgment possible. That is not intended to interfere with or deter in any way the achievement of high levels of economic growth, and that includes those that can be achieved in the marine environment. That is what sustainable development is all about.
	I also assure the hon. Gentleman that "have regard to" is appropriate to the new clause. I do not see a difference between that and "due regard". The hon. Gentleman was generous enough to say that he was perhaps a little over-concerned, and I think he was right.
	The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) also referred to the importance of offshore wind. I accept that we should try to give as clear and detailed guidance as possible on the interpretation of the general principle behind the new clause. We are trying to do that in other ways, not just in the marine environment. I take his point about artificial reefs. With regard to the notification of a site, that is obviously one factor to which the conservation agencies will draw the attention of the confirming authority.
	The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet re-emphasised the importance of renewable energy. From an environmental point of view, conservation is not our only consideration; we are also extremely anxious to develop renewable sources of energy. With those reassurances, I hope that the House will accept the new clause.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 2
	 — 
	Installation of boundary markers

'(1) The appropriate nature conservation body may install markers indicating the boundaries of a marine site of special interest.
	(2) Markers may be installed at any time after a notification has effect.
	(3) If a notification ceases to have effect, or has effect as modified, the appropriate nature conservation body must if necessary and as soon as reasonably practicable remove or alter markers installed under this section.
	(4) Before doing anything under this section, the appropriate nature conservation body must obtain the consent of the owner of the land or sea bed on which a marker is to be installed.
	(5) Nothing in this section exempts the appropriate nature conservation body from a statutory requirement to obtain any other consent (in particular any consent which may be required under section 34 of the Coast Protection Act 1949 (c. 74) or section 1 of the Protection of Wrecks Act 1973 (c. 33)).'.—[Mr. Meacher.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Michael Meacher: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government new clause 4—Meaning of "marine area" and "marine site of special interest".
	Government new clause 5—General interpretation.
	Government new clause 6—Notification of marine sites.
	Government new clause 7—Further provisions about notification.
	Government new clause 8—Modification or denotification.
	Government new clause 9—Denotification in relation to European marine sites.
	Government amendment No. 30.
	Amendment No. 41, in clause 1, page 1, line 13, after "kind", insert—
	'or person or body who customarily carries on a trade, occupation or business'.
	Amendment No. 42, in page 1, line 18, leave out "one month" and insert "three months".
	Amendment No. 44, in page 1, line 20, after "consider", insert "in public".
	Amendment No. 45, in page 2, line 5, at end insert—
	', after taking due account of international best practice'.
	Amendment No. 46, in page 2, line 10, after "features", insert—
	'and the management structure and its financing'.
	Amendment No. 47, in page 2, line 13, leave out "six" and insert "three".
	Amendment No. 50, in page 2, line 23, leave out "six" and insert "three".
	Amendment No. 51, in page 3, line 1, after "body", insert—
	', after consultation with the persons mentioned in subsection (1)'.
	Amendment No. 52, in page 3, line 13, at end insert—
	'(11A) Any notice issued under subsection (10) or (11) shall be accompanied by a statement of reasons for that variation or denotification as the case may be.'.
	Amendment No. 55, in clause 3, page 3, line 24, at end insert—
	'and taking account of international best practice'.
	Amendment No. 56, in page 3, line 33, after "body", insert—
	'(ia) take account of international best practice;'.
	Government amendment No. 38.
	Amendment No. 67, in clause 7, page 5, line 19, at end insert—
	'or
	(c) any river estuary'.

Michael Meacher: This group of new clauses and amendments goes to the heart of the mechanisms by which the Bill will be implemented. I apologise in advance for the length of my remarks, but it is necessary to spell out as clearly and succinctly as possible exactly how it will work in practice.
	The purpose of the new clauses and amendments is to clarify the procedures and definitions for the selection, notification and confirmation of marine sites of special interest. They may look complicated, but I assure hon. Members that their purpose is simple. New Clause 4 aims to identify areas within which an MSSI can be notified. The Bill will allow an MSSI to be notified in any area that is covered by tidal waters between mean low water mark to the limit of territorial waters. A notification may include the water column and the sea bed. In order to cover any burrowing species, it can extend to 30 m below the sea bed. That depth is consistent with the depth to which byelaws under clause 6 can be made.
	New notifications should not duplicate similar designations under different legislation. New clause 4(3) would ensure that an MSSI could not be notified in an area in which an SSSI existed, and subsection (4) would ensure that an SSSI—a terrestrial one—could not be notified within an area already covered by an MSSI.
	Apart from SSSIs, the other major relevant nature conservation designations in the marine environment are European marine sites. The new clause would ensure that an MSSI could not be notified in an area containing an EMS for the same reasons for which the EMS had been designated. However, although the list of species and habitats covered by an EMS will be of international importance, on occasion other species or habitats of national importance may occur within an EMS. In those circumstances, an MSSI can be notified within an area covered by an EMS. On occasion, the designation of an EMS may occur after an MSSI has been notified. Subsection (5) would ensure that the MSSI was denotified if an EMS were designated in the same area for the same reasons.
	Clause 1 lays the groundwork for notification, the effects of which must be clear and unambiguous. Amendment No. 30 would delete the whole of clause 1 and replace it with new clause 6, which is designed to clarify the procedures for notifying MSSIs. Subsection (1) would provide that the appropriate nature conservation agency may notify a marine area as an MSSI by reason of its flora, fauna, or geographical or physiographical features. That would provide the conservation agencies with a power, rather than a duty, to notify sites.
	I said in Committee that I believed a power to be more appropriate because it would give nature conservation agencies greater flexibility in exercising that function, and more time to plan and programme the work required for the identification and notification of sites. It would allow time to gather scientific information and to undertake work on the criteria. The House will know that we are currently in the process of implementing regulations that transpose the habitats directive in respect of marine sites. That is crucial work in which the conservation agencies are heavily involved, which is why it is relevant to the question of time. I cannot guarantee at this stage when that work will be completed, although we want to complete it as soon as possible.
	The interim report of the review of marine nature conservation identifies
	"a need to draw together the identification of those habitats, sites and species which are nationally important and which justify conservation action".
	Given that the Joint Nature Conservation Committee will be looking at criteria for the identification of nationally important marine habitats and species as part of the review, I propose that the Bill's provisions should not be implemented—at least in respect of England—until the review has concluded its work. That is not designed to create delay, but is a common-sense procedure in the circumstances. The work of the review will assist in the drawing up of selection criteria and the identification of sites under the Bill, and will help to influence the size and scope of suitable areas. The Bill will form an intrinsic part of a strategic approach to marine nature conservation.

Desmond Swayne: Will the Minister elaborate on the nature of the criteria being developed: for example, will he confirm that they will be based purely on the site's scientific interest?

Michael Meacher: That is so, and I will say more soon. The hon. Gentleman is on to an important point and I am able to give assurances in that respect.
	While the work of the review is ongoing, I would nevertheless expect English Nature to start looking more closely at the mechanisms for site notification, identifying the costs involved and mapping out new procedures that can be put in place in advance of the outcome of the review. I assure the House that the Government regard protection of the marine environment as a priority: we will give it due consideration in the appropriate allocation of resources to English Nature. I expect English Nature to give the implementation of the Bill's provisions similar emphasis in its corporate plan, and to use its power to notify sites wherever it has identified areas that fully comply with the criteria. I hope that that demonstrates the extent to which we are putting Government resources wholly behind implementation of the Bill.
	New clause 6(2) deals with the publication of criteria for site selection by the confirming authority, after consultation with the appropriate conservation agency. New Clause 5 would provide that the confirming authority would be the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in England, and the National Assembly for Wales in Wales. I think it wise to introduce criteria to ensure that sites are notified on a sound and consistent basis, and that they add value and do not duplicate existing designations.
	To answer the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), I confirm that the criteria will be scientific and will not take account of socioeconomic considerations. I expect the site selection criteria for England to be based on the JNCC's work under the review. There will be full consultation with the appropriate nature conservation agencies, enabling us to work together to understand the features that merit notification and the likely size of sites. There will be public consultation on the criteria, and before publishing them the Secretary of State will take full account of the views of colleagues. Subsection (3) would allow revision of the criteria after further consultation.
	Subsections (4) to (6) deal with the practicalities of notifying a site, clarifying whom the conservation agencies should advise of a site notification and where the notification should be published. The use in subsection (4)(b) of the phrase
	"so far as reasonably practicable"
	acknowledges the difficulties the agency might have in identifying all competent marine authorities who have or could have functions within the area. It is not meant to suggest that the agency will not take account of the views of all those that are known, or do its best to reach them all, merely that certainty is not always possible.
	Subsection (5) stipulates the effective date of a notification under the new clause. Protection applies from the date the notification is first published. A similar provision applies to land-based SSSIs. The purpose is to prevent any deliberate action to destroy the special interest while representations are being considered.
	The provisions of new clause 7 would replace those in clause 1(3) to (8) and deal with the options open to the confirming authority in considering a notification made by the conservation agency. The notification should specify the features by reason of which the site is of special interest, and contain a statement that sets out both the conservation agency's objectives for the conservation of those features and its views about the management necessary to secure those objectives. Subsection (1) proposes a period of three months, not one, for the submission of representations, and subsection (3) states that the confirming authority should make a decision on the notification within nine months of the notification having first been published. That is a longer period than the one proposed in the Bill, but it matches the timetable for the consideration of a site of special scientific interest on land under the 1981 Act. To ensure that there is a full opportunity for representations to be made, the longer period based on that precedent is right. I give an assurance to the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall). As a notification takes effect as soon as it is advertised, the longer period allows better decision making but poses no threat to the conservation of the proposed site. I hope that we can get the best of both worlds.
	The statement of views about management of the site is likely to include an indication of the operations which, in the agency's view, would be likely to cause damage to the special features. Representations may be made about this statement, including the listed operations. The statement is likely to prove extremely helpful in, for example, taking decisions under clause 3 in relation to the carrying out of or consenting to operations. It will be important that the competent authority is fully aware, in advance, of the operations that the conservation agency considers are likely to damage the site, and takes full account of these in making its own careful and informed assessment.
	Subsection (3) would provide that the powers of the confirming authority extended to modifying the notification, as well as to confirming it as made, or withdrawing it. I should make it clear that the modification may only reduce—not increase—the size of the site, so it may not cover a new and previously not notified area; and it may only remove, not add, features of interest. It may also amend the conservation objectives. If it is not satisfied that the case has been made, the confirming authority may withdraw a notification. However, there must be a notice giving a clear statement of the reasons for the decision.
	In considering a notification, the most important issue is the special interest, and whether the conservation agency has demonstrated its existence. Representations may question the scientific basis, but in exercising its functions the confirming authority will also be under the duty, set out in new clause 1, to have regard to the desirability of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development. Environmental sustainability requires the highest level of protection for irreplaceable natural assets, but this cannot be addressed in isolation from proper consideration of economic and social needs, and the wider environmental agenda. We shall consider these issues on a case-by-case basis, carefully balancing all the benefits and costs. That is the only way forward.
	New clause 8—the House will be glad to know that I am gradually coming to the end of my remarks—addresses circumstances in which the conservation agency wishes to vary the confirmed notification, perhaps because of increased scientific knowledge about the special features or changes in the marine environment.
	Notification of a marine site of special interest includes a number of different features. It marks a boundary within which the marine area is of special interest, identifies features of special interest, and includes conservation objectives and a statement of views about how the site should be managed to conserve the features. The provision allows any of these components to be modified and, at subsection (2), power for the conservation body to propose the cancellation of the MSSI, but only if it believes that the area is no longer of special interest. The procedure for varying a notification is the same as that which applies when a site is first notified. There are restrictions on the confirming authority's capacity to modify in subsections (8) and (9).
	These provisions are modelled on those that already apply to notification of SSSIs under section 28 of the 1981 Act, as amended by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. They provide a necessary degree of flexibility so that the conservation agencies can ensure that notifications remain accurate and take account of new information and knowledge.
	Where the conservation body proposes to cancel a notification it may do so only if it is satisfied that the area is no longer of special interest. The site will continue to be protected until such a notification is confirmed, and the confirming authority will consider the arguments, and any representations made, extremely carefully. I believe that I should mention that for the sake of completeness and thoroughness. In my view, the procedure will be used only exceptionally. If we are to provide a means of identifying and protecting nationally important sites, it would be inappropriate to include sites which we recognised were not, or no longer, of special interest.
	Amendment No. 38 deletes clause 7, and new clause 5 would replace it with provisions that clarified the definitions used in the Bill. They are technical in nature and place the definitions in alphabetical order, for ease of reference.
	As the only function of relevant marine authorities is the establishment of management schemes, the list of authorities permitted to establish management schemes is proposed in amendment No. 2. The definition of "relevant marine authority" is therefore deleted as this term is no longer used.
	The definition of a "European marine site" has been clarified to ensure that it has the same meaning as the 1994 habitats regulations. The definition of "competent marine authority" is now much closer to the definition of "competent authority" in the habitats regulations. I am sure that that has been done to make things simpler and easier to understand and administer. As with the habitats regulations, bodies such as the Crown Estate Commissioners and sea fisheries committees are competent marine authorities.
	Subsections (2) and (3) would enable the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales, as appropriate, to amend the definition of "competent marine authority" by statutory instrument in respect of sites that have been notified by English Nature or the Countryside Council for Wales.
	New clause 2 replaces clause 1(9). It merely clarifies procedures on the installation of markers indicating the boundaries of MSSIs. The nature conservation agencies must seek the permission of the owner of the land or sea bed on which the markers are to be placed, and must remove markers if the site is denotified. We expect English Nature to forward a copy of site boundaries to the Hydrographic Office, which will consider whether to mark these on Admiralty charts.
	I apologise to the House for the extreme detail and the length of my remarks. However, it is extremely important that there should be no dubiety about the operation of the Bill. I hope that my remarks have been positive towards that end. On that basis, I commend the new clauses and the amendments to the House.

John Randall: I thank the Minister for his detailed remarks. He need make no apology for clarification. I think that some of my questions have been answered already, but some of them are so important that it may be appropriate to repeat them. That is the only apology that I make.
	As the Minister said, the duty in clause 1 has been reduced to a power in new clause 6. The Minister flagged that up in Committee. In some respects, it will make the Bill slightly weaker. However, that may be necessary for the reasons outlined by the Minister. Will the Minister confirm that if the new clause is accepted and the duty to notify is reduced to a power, English Nature and the Countryside Council for Wales will still be given the resources to enable them to establish effectively a network of nationally important marine areas throughout territorial waters within a reasonable period of the Bill's enactment? Will he confirm that when a site clearly merits designation as a nationally important MSSI, English Nature or the CCW will be expected to notify the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales of that fact?
	I was grateful for the Minister's clarification of new clause 6, and his explanation to my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) that the criteria to be agreed will be scientific and will require sites to be notified on the grounds of their scientific interest alone. What consistency will there be between the criteria developed for England and for Wales? Will interested parties other than the statutory nature conservation bodies be consulted during the development of criteria? Will the Secretary of State or the Welsh Assembly be able to set aside the advice of English Nature or the CCW on criteria for site selection?
	New clause 7 deals with further provisions about notification. Given the widely recognised difficulties that have dogged the designation of marine nature reserves because of the need to achieve complete consensus, is there an intention to require 100 per cent. agreement by all interested parties before notification of an MSSI is confirmed? Will the Minister confirm that, as long as English Nature and the CCW take reasonably practicable steps to secure consensus, the Secretary of State or the Welsh Assembly will confirm notification of an MSSI despite outstanding objections, providing the science clearly justifies notification?

Gareth Thomas: May I echo the hon. Gentleman's concern about the need for 100 per cent. consensus before an MSSI is designated, and flag up a parallel concern about inland waters of which the British canoeing fraternity is only too well aware? Riparian owners can exclude canoeists from their waters, even when there would be no impact whatever on the environment or their land. There is a danger, as the hon. Gentleman said, that the 100 per cent consensus may stop sensible action.

John Randall: I am afraid that I am not an expert on canoeing, but I accept the hon. Gentleman's point. As the House knows, it is almost impossible to achieve 100 per cent. consensus; it would be a great shame if the requirement meant that one small voice could stop something as important as notification going ahead.

Desmond Swayne: Is not the key point that we are seeking reassurance from the Minister that we are not going to give legal effect to the guidance which has stalled the marine nature reserve programme?

John Randall: My hon. Friend is astute.

Desmond Swayne: My hon. Friend is very kind.

John Randall: My hon. Friend deserves it.
	Will the Minister confirm that operations likely to cause damage can be included in the conservation statement in new clause 7 and will constitute part of the statutory notification? I am pretty certain that he said the Crown Estate is considered a competent marine authority under clause 3 on the duties of competent marine authorities. Clause 4, on management schemes, would be amended by Government amendment No. 2, which we shall debate later. Will the Minister confirm that the Crown Estate could be added to the proposed list of authorities able to establish management schemes for MSSIs by virtue of Government amendment No. 14?
	On that note, I shall conclude, and await the Minister's response.

Andrew Dismore: I congratulate the Minister on many of the Government's amendments. Some of the amendments that I have tabled have been overtaken by the Government amendments, but I should like to push others for the sake of clarification.

Gareth Thomas: Before my hon. Friend launches into his speech, will he join me in seeking clarification from the Minister about whether new clause 2(4) is needed? To return to my intervention on the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall), there are 10,800 miles of rapidly moving water or other waters suitable for canoeists in this country. However, because the consent of the owner of the land is required, canoeists have access to only 1 per cent. of those waters. Subsection (4) would surely prevent the sensible development of MSSIs, and would provide a bitter parallel with the circumstances of canoeists in this country.

Andrew Dismore: My hon. Friend makes an interesting intervention. I shall shortly address the need for consent in the context of notifications. However, the point that I am about to make may be of more interest to my hon. Friend. I assume that he is primarily talking about canoeing on rivers which, of course, the Bill does not address. My amendment No. 67 seeks to extend its provisions to river estuaries. It is a probing amendment; I am not sure of the extent to which river estuaries are already protected under arrangements for sites of special scientific interest.

Shona McIsaac: As my hon. Friend will be aware, my constituency is bounded by the River Humber, which has one of the largest river estuaries in the country. Many SSSIs among the mudflats at the edge of the river are already protected.

Andrew Dismore: I am grateful to my hon. Friend; I was going to use the Humber as an example. As she knows, I grew up in east Yorkshire in the seaside town of Bridlington, and I was going to refer to one or two of my experiences. However, I wish to refer specifically to tidal rivers.
	In introducing the Government amendments, my right hon. Friend the Minister referred to the definitions of high and low water marks. Many years ago, in my professional life, I had to interpret the high water mark in relation to the Fire Services Act 1947 to determine when the fire brigade's duty began and ended. I know from that complicated legislation that determining such marks can be difficult, which is why I have flagged up the issue of river estuaries and tidal rivers. I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend would deal with that in his reply and assure us that we are covering all the bases, either through existing legislation or the Bill, if it is enacted.
	I am grateful for the Government amendments which clarify the timetable. My amendments Nos. 42, 47 and 50 attempt to do the same, but far less scientifically; I defer to my right hon. Friend, and shall not seek to press them. However, I echo some of the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Uxbridge in response to my right hon. Friend's substituting a power for a duty in new clause 6. I, too, am worried about that, although I recognise that there are resource implications, so I understand his reasons. I shall return to the question of resources.
	With regard to notification, there are three options. I assume that my right hon. Friend's amendment will prevail. The first option as to who should be notified is in the original Bill. In amendment No. 41, I set out an addition to that, and my right hon. Friend dealt with it in new clause 6. My main aim is to make sure that the people who are likely to be affected by the designation of a marine site are properly notified and consulted.
	Clause 1 states that
	"as far as is reasonably practicable, every holder of a property right or statutory right of any kind in relation to any of that marine area"
	should receive notification. My right hon. Friend's new clause 6(4) states:
	"If a body decides to make a notification under subsection (1), it must notify . . . any other person who the body is directed by the confirming authority to notify"—
	the confirming authority in this context being the Minister. Similar provisions apply in Wales. My aim is to make it clear who will be the subject of that direction from the Minister. Many, many people will be affected. My amendment No. 41 would have incorporated into the original wording a provision that anybody who carried out a trade, occupation or business that could be affected by the introduction of a marine site should be notified. If we are not careful about the wording, people may fall through the net.
	New clause 6 makes provision for advertisement of the notification in a local newspaper, but that may not reach everybody. For example, fishermen who are out at sea for several weeks may not see the local paper. That must be taken into account. On Second Reading—I think—my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie Quinn) dealt with the problems that the fishing industry could face as a result of the Bill, and with how it could benefit as well. My hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) nods; there is still something of a deep sea fleet based around the Humber. We must make sure that the fishing industry is consulted—both the inshore fishing industry, which is based in towns like my old home town, Bridlington, and the offshore fleet.

Gareth Thomas: If my hon. Friend's amendment No. 67 is successful, river estuaries will be incorporated into the terms of the Bill. I echo his concerns about the need for clearer specification of who should be consulted. The relevant authorities are pretty good at consulting the fishing industry and fishing interests in general, but the British Canoe Union might be a suitable addition to my hon. Friend's list of consultees.

Andrew Dismore: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I intend to deal with some of the recreational uses of our waters. I know that he is a great advocate of the canoeing fraternity. I used to do a little canoeing in my youth, until I did an eskimo roll once and came up on the other side without my glasses, which somewhat put me off the sport.
	We must consider not only the commercial fisheries but recreational fishing, which is indirectly quite an important trade or business to the day-trip boats that go out of harbours such as Bridlington. I am surprised that the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) is not present to speak up for his constituents in that regard.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West has drawn the attention of the House to recreational uses. Apart from canoeing, there is a great deal of sailing and yachting activity. Yacht clubs are important not just as recreational organisations but as businesses. The diving fraternity will be affected, as will pleasure boats. I know that the pleasure boats that go out towards Flamborough Head and up and down that part of the east coast are important businesses which could be affected by the introduction of a marine site in that area.

John Randall: I assume that, knowing the area so well, the hon. Gentleman also recognises that it is a good feeding ground for all the sea birds that breed along that coast, particularly at Bempton cliffs.

Andrew Dismore: That is my next point. I have been a regular visitor to Bempton cliffs and I still am, when I occasionally go home to see my mother in Yorkshire. I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that the cliffs are a spectacular site. The boats stay well away from that area.
	New recreational industries are growing—for example, whale watching.

Shona McIsaac: And seal watching.

Andrew Dismore: Indeed. I see from the report entitled "Whale Watching 2001", which was prepared by the International Fund for Animal Welfare, that that is a growth industry. In 1991, some 400 people in the UK were engaged in that activity, spending $43,000 directly and $330,000 indirectly, but in 1998 there were more than 121,000 whale watchers, who spent almost $1.9 million in direct expenditure and more than $8 million in indirect expenditure. So, it is an important industry.
	Much of that activity, I expect, would take place in the sort of area that we are talking about protecting. Such industries also need to be protected. According to the same report, 28 per cent. of visitors to the Moray firth said that the presence of dolphins had been the sole reason for their visit. Through my amendment, I am trying to ensure that all those whose livelihood is likely to be affected—sometimes positively as well as negatively—are properly consulted.
	New clause 7 introduces the concept of management, to which my amendment No. 46 refers. New clause 7(2)(b) provides that the notification statement must include details of how the site should be managed. Several of my amendments, in this group as well as later groups, refer to the importance of the management regime for the site. Without a good management regime, many problems could occur.
	Amendment No. 46 goes beyond that and deals with how the management regime is to be financed. It is important to recognise that if we do the job properly, there will be costs. The question is where the money will come from. It is all well and good for us to talk about introducing marine sites of scientific interest and looking after them, but if the resources are not put in to achieve that, whether from charitable trusts, the Government, nature protection bodies or Europe, we will not accomplish a great deal.
	I return to new clause 7 and the representation procedure, and my amendments Nos. 44 and 51. With regard to the people who should be consulted about a marine site, the new clause refers to the need for representations and consideration of those representations, but it makes no provision on how those representations should be made. For example, should they be produced in writing, or would a picket of angry fishermen suffice?
	We need to be a little more specific about how representations should be made. For example, there is no power to make regulations that would specify in subordinate legislation how representations should be made, a timetable for their consideration and so on. That is a feature of similar legislation, but it is lacking from this Bill. When he replies to the debate, perhaps my right hon. Friend will tell us how he sees such representations being received.
	In its briefing for this debate, English Nature states that it
	"wishes to see the Bill tightened in some areas, particularly in relation to how competent authorities are expected to take account of English Nature's advice when deciding what might constitute a damaging operation."
	Consultation is an important theme that should run throughout the Bill, and although such considerations do not necessarily form part of that aspect of consultation, they need to be addressed in our approach to implementing the legislation.
	Having discussed how representations should be made, we should next ask how they will be considered. New clause 7 refers to the "confirming authority"—in other words, the Minister—
	"having regard to any representations or objections".
	The Opposition expressed criticism about the issue. Does "having regard" mean having due regard, having full regard, or simply looking at such representations and throwing them in the bin? I am sure that my right hon. Friend would not throw them in the bin, but the provision needs a bit more substance.
	My right hon. Friend doubtless would not accept the procedure outlined in my amendment No. 44. Nevertheless, it goes to the heart of what we are trying to achieve: the consideration of representations "in public". If the process is to work, we must build consensus among all who are affected—be they those engaged in trade, such as fishermen, or nature conservation enthusiasts and bodies. The best way to achieve that is to consider openly and in public all the views that are expressed. I believe in open government, and such a procedure would make a very important contribution to it. The amendments are important, and I shall be interested to hear my right hon. Friend's comments on the way in which representations should be made and considered, and decisions confirmed.
	I welcome new clause 7(3), which states that if the original notification is withdrawn or modified, notice given by the confirming authority
	"must include a statement of reasons".
	That chimes with my amendment No. 52. It would be appalling if, after hearing various representations, a blue pen was simply struck through various parts of the original notification decision, and no thought was given to explaining why the change was made. Without representations, certain decisions taken under this legislation could give rise to heated views on both sides.
	Amendments Nos. 45, 55 and 56—relating to the need to take account of international best practice—constitute my main contribution to this group, and I was pleased to note that they were indeed selected. Although the concept of protecting our marine wildlife through this kind of legislation is relatively new, such protection has been offered throughout the rest of the world for some time. We can learn a lot from what has happened elsewhere, and perhaps I might illustrate the point with two or three brief examples.
	The first two examples concern Greece, a country that I know well and have visited widely. The national marine park of the northern Sporades, on the island of Alonissos—which incorporates six smaller islands—was founded on 28 May 1992, so the Greeks have considerable experience of such matters. It is a very isolated area in which there is only limited human interference, so there was already a good natural environment for making the land and sea areas of the park an ideal habitat for many of the Aegean's threatened species of plants and animals. Severe restrictions are imposed on commercial activities such as fishing and tourism. They could have a serious impact on the people of the northern Sporades, who earn their living from those two industries. In fact, there is little else for them to do. The marine park deals not only with fish but with certain rare sea birds and, perhaps most importantly, the Mediterranean monk seal, which is under threat. It is an ancient animal that has been represented throughout history, including on ancient Greek coins. It is one of the largest seals in the world, but its rate of reproduction is very slow.
	Until recently, the monk seal was hunted intensively for its fur and skin, and fishermen who worried about its stealing food from their nets also used to bump it off. It is important to note that, since the marine park's introduction, virtually no such incidents have occurred. The marine park has actively engaged the region's fishermen and the fishing co-operative of Alonissos in its protection efforts, which has contributed greatly to stopping the killing of those seals.
	When one arrives in Alonissos, a little presentation—it is almost a museum—takes place on the dockside, explaining what the Government of Greece are trying to achieve in promoting the marine park. It engages tourists in the concept of the marine park, and perhaps encourages them to proselytise elsewhere. On visiting it, my eyes were certainly opened to the benefits of protecting marine wildlife in that way. An interesting documentary by a friend of mine, Mrs. Lydia Carras, recently won the Europa Nostra award for the best European nature documentary. It is called "The Song of the Monk Seal", and I am happy to lend my videotape copy to anyone who wants to watch it.
	One downside of the Alonissos marine park is that protection is voluntary. Although the inhabitants of Alonissos and the neighbouring island of Skopelos were united in pressing the Government of Greece to establish the marine park, and although there is a biological station, a formal management system has yet to be put in place. That can be contrasted with the island of Zakynthos, which is famous throughout the world for its turtle beaches. Such a management regime has been established in Zakynthos for a couple of years. However, unlike in Alonissos—where people want, but have yet to get, the protection afforded by a management scheme—sections of the Zakynthos population are against such a scheme. A management scheme is perhaps more important in Zakynthos, given the hostility of local businesses to such measures.
	The Zakynthos marine park also integrates protection of the territorial zones on land—the nesting grounds of the loggerhead turtles—with protection of nearby affected sea areas. It has achieved a great deal, despite being unable to bring the local community along with it. Greece therefore offers a couple of good examples of how international practice can inform the way in which we develop our own arrangements.
	My final example is from Australia. A few years ago, I was fortunate enough to visit the great barrier reef, which is the largest world heritage area. Some 1,500 species of fish, more than 300 species of reef-building corals, 4,000 molluscs and 400 species of sponges have so far been identified there. Australia probably has more experience of such matters than anywhere else. In 1976, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority—a joint federal Government and Queensland state government body—assumed responsibility for the conservation and management of one of the world's largest and most unusual parks: the great barrier reef underwater park. On visiting the reef, I was impressed by the way in which the company that took us there by boat applied strict rules and regulations governing the conduct of visitors. For example, people who were snorkelling or diving were not allowed to stand on the coral, and the authorities made sure that they did not. That is an extremely important area, and it is part of Australia's national oceans policy.
	We could learn a great deal from the way in which the Australians established their authority, which undertakes a variety of tasks, including management plans, research, monitoring and interpreting data, and providing educational services and management advice. The day-to-day management is carried out by the Queensland agencies, subject to the authority's mandate, and they issue permits and give advice and assistance, nationally and internationally. I am sure that they would be prepared to help us to make our own arrangements.
	Will my right hon. Friend look beyond our own shores to international best practice to see how we can learn from what is good and bad overseas? Will he also take account of the need to ensure that those who will be most affected by the designation of a marine site will be properly consulted and involved in the process? Only by doing that can we achieve the success that the Bill very much deserves.

David Heath: I certainly concur with the point made by the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) about the need to look at international best practice. There is considerable experience elsewhere in the world of operating marine reserves, and we should learn from that.
	These are important new clauses and amendments, and I do not dissent from the broad sweep of their intent, but I want to raise several important issues. The compass of new clause 5(1) underlines the extraordinary complexity of current coastal zone management and we need to address that. On a general point, it is absurd that we have so many bodies with different powers and responsibilities, often overlapping and sometimes in conflict. It is right to review that, and I note what the Minister said about the intention to implement the Bill, if it is passed, after the review of marine conservation. Some, including major UK ports, have said that the entire Bill should have been delayed until after that review; I do not agree. We need to get the Bill on to the statute book as well as to review our arrangements for coastal zone management.
	It is perhaps for that reason that subsection (1)(g) refers to
	"any other public body of any description",
	which is the catch-all phrase for all the bodies that the Minister either does not wish to list or fears that he may have omitted earlier in the subsection. I should have liked the sea fisheries committees to be explicitly included. They are essential to the Bill, and after all they are hardly a new invention, having been around since 1888. They deserve to be listed, not least because of the resource implications for them of implementing the Bill—something to which I am sure we shall return. The Minister said that the intention was to include them as a competent marine authority, but it would be better if they were listed in the new clause.
	If sea fisheries committees were named in new clause 5, it would be clear that, under new clause 6, they had to be notified when an area was to be designated a site of special interest. It would be remiss of any body that was, within the meaning of the Bill, a competent marine authority not to notify the appropriate sea fisheries committee when it intended to designate an area. On that point, the Bill differs from the equivalent legislation relating to land, in which there are requirements to consult relevant agricultural interests and landowners. It is unfortunate that the equivalent parts of the fisheries economy are not included in the Bill.

Shona McIsaac: It is a little unfair of the hon. Gentleman to say that sea fisheries committees are not mentioned. Government amendment No. 2 refers to
	"any local fisheries committee provided for under section 1 of the Sea Fisheries Regulation Act 1966".
	So the committees are in fact mentioned in amendments that we will discuss today.

David Heath: Those are amendments that we will discuss later, and I would be out of order if I responded to a point about amendment No. 2. There may a reference to the committees, but they are not named as a competent marine authority, which would put them at the heart of the Bill, where they ought to be.
	I have another slight problem with new clause 6. Subsection (2) says that criteria will be published. As we have heard, those are the scientific criteria that will be used to judge whether a marine SSI should be established. However, there is no requirement in the Government's proposals to publish any form of statutory advice. The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) made that point in Committee when he tabled amendments of his own. The Minister said that he would consider the matter carefully and determine how advice should be given. That advice is not mentioned in the amendments that we are discussing today.
	It would be extremely helpful if a code of statutory guidance were to be published by Ministers for the assistance not only of the marine authorities responsible for designation and notification but of everybody else concerned. Everyone would know exactly where they stood, and they would know which points to consider, not least so that they could make objections. Hon. Members will recall that we debated that matter at great length during proceedings on the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. The more grounds for objection one can eliminate, the more focused any objections will be, and the easier it will be to deal with proper objections. That is important, so I would be grateful if the Minister told the House whether he intends to publish such guidance, statutory or otherwise.
	I want to make two points that may appear fatuous, although I hope they do not. One has to consider what may go wrong when the Bill is implemented. Under the designation and notification procedures, the appropriate nature conservation bodies are defined as English Nature and the Countryside Council for Wales. What will happen when the area concerned is in the jurisdiction of both bodies, in the Bristol channel? There is no provision for them to act jointly.
	It is not inconceivable that the problem will arise. The water borders between England and Wales, off Somerset, are quite odd. Because of local authority boundaries, a spit of English water goes down the middle of the Bristol channel; Steep Holme is in one country and Flatholm is in the other. My point is not therefore completely ridiculous: can the two nature conservation bodies act together?
	My second point may seem even sillier, but I must ask the Minister to consider it. It concerns the definition of a marine SSI. The sea bed and land below the sea bed is mentioned, as well as the water column. In the legislation dealing with land sites of special scientific interest there is a clear legal understanding that the column of air above the land is also included. Will the Minister assure me that that is also the case in this Bill, which refers to the water column but not the air above it? Clearly, one of the nature conservation interests may be sea birds, and disturbance of sea birds above the surface of the sea could be detrimental to the reasons for designation. I would hate to find that that was not included in the definition in legislation because of a misunderstanding or a misconstruction of the terms used.

John Randall: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point. However, it is most likely that the birds affected would be sea duck, whose feeding area is on the surface, and not necessarily birds that are in flight above it. However, it is an interesting point and I would be grateful to the Minister if he were to clarify it.

David Heath: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He is right. Sea birds, with the exception of the albatross, do not tend to stay airborne for long periods. However, as we have discussed previously with regard to SSSIs, disturbance to the birds rather than destruction of the habitat is included. One can imagine a construction that causes no damage to the sea or the sea bed but that, nevertheless, irreparably damages the sea bird interest of a particular area. If a clever lawyer working for a corporation somewhere were able to say that that was not part of the marine site of special interest because it was above the water column, it would be a great shame. Perhaps the Minister will consider that point or take advice on it. I hope that I am barking up the wrong tree about that, and that my argument is a complete waste of time, but let us be sure.

Shona McIsaac: First, I apologise to the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) and the Minister for not being in the Chamber earlier to hear their opening remarks.
	As I said earlier, my constituency is bounded by the River Humber, one of the biggest estuaries in this country. Indeed, it is an important breeding ground for migratory sea birds, and many of the mud flats above the low water mark are already designated as sites of special scientific interest. Those areas are covered by what we might call land-based legislation, whereas I understand that this Bill relates to areas below the mean low water mark. When the tide goes out in the Humber, it goes out an awful long way. On some days, one feels that one can walk to the Netherlands or Denmark, such is the expanse of mud flats. However, when the tide comes in, it comes in fast, which causes a problem when people get stranded on sand banks.
	I support the Bill, but I would like clarification from the Minister on a couple of points. The Bill makes it clear that designation of a marine site of special interest will be based on scientific evidence of its flora and fauna or on geological or physiographical criteria. Earlier this week, the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) managed to get a private Member's Bill on marine archaeology through Committee. That Bill mainly gave responsibility for marine archaeology to English Heritage, which had not occurred before, and it had all-party support. What is the interplay between that Bill and this Bill? Under this Bill, geological and physiographical aspects will be taken into account, and submerged landscapes are of scientific interest in marine archaeology.

John Randall: I was on the Committee that considered the National Heritage Bill to which the hon. Lady refers, although, unfortunately, I was only briefly present for its proceedings. That Bill has the support of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, and is seen as part of a wider picture. It might cover wrecks that would be marine sites of special interest because of the important biodiversity found there. The Bills are compatible rather than being in competition.

Shona McIsaac: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that clarification, because I wanted to establish whether the two Bills would be compatible. The hon. Gentleman is right that many archaeological remains such as wrecks of ships and even aircraft become important marine habitats, which create great biodiversity. We must therefore strike the right balance in that regard. I hope that the Minister will shed light on the interplay between marine archaeology and this Bill, and on submerged landscapes that are the result of changed sea levels.

John Randall: The hon. Lady may also be interested to know that the National Heritage Bill was introduced in the other place by my noble Friend Baroness Anelay, who has said that if we were lucky enough to obtain the passage of this Bill to the other place, she would help to support it. That emphasises the compatibility of the two Bills.

Shona McIsaac: Again, I thank the hon. Gentleman for that clarification. My fondness for this Bill is growing by the minute.
	Fishing and the fishing industry is a slightly more controversial subject. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) mentioned that there was still a distant water fleet based mainly in Grimsby and Hull. Some—not all—fishermen are concerned about this Bill. Those concerns revolve first around notification. Many distant water trawlermen are away for long periods of time, and I hope that they are notified in some way. Fishermen are saying that the introduction of these special sites will exclude them from important fishing grounds. Because of the slim margins that exist today in the fishing industry, some fishermen are fearful that the Bill may affect their livelihoods. Given that quotas can be draconian, I hope that the Minister will appreciate the concern expressed by some trawlermen in my constituency. I have explained to trawlermen that the introduction of these sites will create important breeding grounds for fish species, and that excluding commercial fisheries from those sites could be beneficial to the fishing industry.
	The other point that I want to mention on behalf of the fishing community is the level of fines imposed for damage—£20,000, I understand. Again, concern has been expressed that that is a high level. Will there be any way for fishermen to appeal against fines imposed on them? Trawl nets are very large and can create damage. Marine biologists have expressed concern about the damage done to coral reefs off Britain.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon said, coral reefs are not just found in Australia, and concern has been expressed about the effect that trawl nets and fishing equipment might have on the reefs. Given the size of the nets, we must be very careful where we place markers in such areas. Trawl nets might damage the reef even though the boat itself was well outside the area. We must consider how we can deal with that.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon referred to whale and dolphin watching and I was surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) did not suggest that we could watch whales from canoes. That would have given him another opportunity to mention canoeing in the debate. However, I wanted to refer briefly to grey and common seals, because the United Kingdom has about 40 per cent. of the world's population of these species.
	Some members of the fishing industry suggest that some of those seals should be culled because of the amount of fish they eat. However, the Under–Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley)—he has responsibility for fisheries—has made it clear that there is no scientific evidence that would justify the culling of the species. In fact, the scientific evidence shows that dolphins eat more fish than seals ever do. However, seals are more visible to fisherman, who then blame the seals and want to cull their numbers.
	My family is from an area on the coast of Scotland and I know that many seals breed near the islands there. Will the Bill offer more protection to colonies of seals? I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will be able to confirm that there is no scientific basis for culling seals. In fact, the seal population in this country is much lower than it was before the distemper outbreak took place in the 1980s. We must also consider this aspect of marine conservation.
	I support the Bill and wish it well. However, I hope that my right hon. Friend will clarify some of the issues that I have raised.

Bob Spink: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac), who spoke eloquently about her constituency interest in the matter. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) on his persistence and skill in bringing the Bill this far. I hope that he will be successful in getting it on to the statute book. He has a good chance of doing that because of the constructive and helpful approach that the Government have taken. I congratulate the Minister on his contribution.
	I do not intend to delay the House for long, but I hope that the debate on this group of new clauses and amendments—in particular that on new clause 4, which relates to the identification and notification of MSSIs—is the appropriate one on which to discuss fishing interests. We now better understand the dynamic nature of the marine environment.
	Although I did not serve on the Committee considering the Bill—that is my loss—and although I am only a humble Back Bencher, I wish to consider two constituency interests: conservation and the inshore fishing industry. Those interests are complementary to each other. Furthermore, my constituency lies in and on the Thames estuary; Canvey island and part of Two Tree island are in the Thames.
	The National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations has a valid interest in the Bill. Commercial fishermen depend on the marine environment to sustain and replenish fish stocks, so I hope that the Minister will tell us whether the NFFO's concerns have been fully taken on board. I was interested to hear the remarks of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) on the subject—he spoke quite wisely—so will the Minister place on record how the Bill will affect, if indeed, it will, the imminent and much-needed reform of the common fisheries policy? Although my views are well known in the House—I believe that we should get out of the policy and have nothing to do with it—clarification on that point would be appreciated.
	I wish the Bill well. I will not detain the House any further other than to congratulate again my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and the Minister on their approach.

Michael Meacher: I felt the need to apologise for the length of my opening remarks, and I now have to apologise for the length of my closing remarks. This is the main group of amendments and a range of important and highly pertinent questions have been asked by Members on both sides. I shall try to deal with them as quickly and as succinctly as I can.
	The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) asked about the effect of the duty to notify being reduced to a power and wondered whether English Nature and the Countryside Council for Wales will still be given the resources to enable them effectively to establish a network of important marine areas. I said—I hope that he accepts this—that a power may be appropriate on the ground that it would offer greater flexibility and provide more time given the work that the Joint Nature Conservation Committee and conservation agencies are doing on other issues. The change will allow for scientific information to be gathered and for work on the criteria to be carried out. As I have said, the nature conservation agencies already have priorities for marine work.
	On the point about resources, I said that we intend to provide the extra resources that will enable English Nature properly to implement the provisions in the Bill. In Wales, it will be a matter for the National Assembly, but the Government are putting their resources behind the Bill.
	When a site clearly merits designation as an MSSI, the hon. Gentleman asked whether English Nature and the Countryside Council for Wales will be expected to notify the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales of that fact. The answer is yes. I assure him that, where a site merits designation as an MSSI against the criteria published by the confirming authority, I certainly expect English Nature to notify that fact, and I am quite sure that it will. Notification in Wales is, of course, a matter for the National Assembly.
	When English Nature and the Countryside Council for Wales go as far is reasonably practical to secure consensus between interested parties, the hon. Gentleman asked me whether I could confirm that when English Nature and the Countryside Council for Wales have gone as far as reasonably practicable to secure consensus between interested parties, the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales will confirm notification of an MSSI despite outstanding objections. Is absolute consensus required? The answer is that the confirming authority is quite properly obliged to consider all the representations made to him or her in deciding whether to confirm a site. However, I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that it will not be necessary to obtain 100 per cent. consensus of opinion before the authority confirms the site.
	The hon. Gentleman asked whether interested parties other than the statutory nature conservation bodies will be consulted during development of the criteria and, again, the answer is yes. As I said, I would expect the site selection criteria for England to be based on the work that is being carried out by the JNCC under the auspices of the review, and there will be full consultation with the appropriate nature conservation agencies, but we intend to have public consultation on the criteria. As I said, before publishing them, the Secretary of State will also take full account of the views of colleagues or other bodies making representations.
	On the question of consistency between the criteria developed for England and those developed for Wales, this is a devolved issue and there is the potential for discrepancy, although I think that there is a recognition on both sides that, if possible, it is best avoided. I would expect the criteria for England to be based on the work on nationally important site selection carried out by the JNCC as part of the review of marine nature conservation. That will have a Great Britain perspective and it will be the responsibility of the Secretary of State, in consultation with English Nature, to ensure that the criteria are suitable for England. I repeat, because it is the formal position, that the criteria for Wales are a matter for the National Assembly for Wales, but there will certainly be discussion between us to ensure that we obtain a common view if possible.
	The hon. Gentleman asked whether the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales would be able to set aside the advice of English Nature or the Countryside Council for Wales on criteria for site selection, and the answer is that in considering a notification the most important issue is—

Tony Cunningham: This might sound strange, but where we have, as we have in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac), huge areas of sand once the tide goes out and we are establishing an MSSI according to various criteria, can we bear in mind the criteria for the SSSIs on land? If the low water mark is the benchmark, sea birds could be protected on a certain amount of sand once the tide goes out, but not when it comes in, and there could be two different criteria. Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the criteria for SSSIs when establishing the criteria for their marine equivalent?

Michael Meacher: I had intended to deal with that when I replied to my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac), but in the light of that intervention I shall do so now.
	In deciding the boundaries between SSSIs and MSSIs we shall seek to avoid there being a point at which there is a discontinuity. The mean low water mark has been chosen as the upper landward limit of an MSSI, as that generally corresponds to the lower seaward limit under which SSSIs are designated under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, so the problem about which my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Tony Cunningham) is concerned should not arise.
	I return to the point raised by the hon. Member for Uxbridge about setting aside the advice of the nature conservation agencies. I repeat that in considering a notification the most important issue is the special interest and whether the conservation agency has demonstrated its existence. That is the heart of the process. Representations may choose to question the scientific basis of the proposed notification, but in exercising its functions, the confirming authority will also, as I said, be under the duty set out in new clause 1 to have regard to the desirability of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development.
	We will consider those issues on a case-by-case basis and the aim is to balance them carefully. I cannot give an assurance that either those who have particular concerns for development interests or those who have particular concerns for conservation interests will automatically override the other. Sustainable development is designed to try to obtain a balance in which neither automatically overrides the other, but in a particular case the aim is to reconcile them.
	The hon. Gentleman also asked me to confirm that operations likely to damage can be included in the conservation statement issued under new clause 7, and that where they are included they will constitute part of a statutory notification. The statement of views about the management of the site is likely to include an indication of the operations which, in the agency's view, would be likely to cause damage to the special features. That is an essential part of the statement. Representations may be made about the statement, including a list of operations. The statement is likely to be helpful, particularly, as I said, in taking decisions under clause 3 in relation to the carrying out of or consenting to operations.
	The hon. Gentleman also asked me, for the purposes of clause 3, which relates to competent marine authorities' duties, whether the Crown Estate Commissioners are considered a competent marine authority. Under new clause 5, the definition of competent marine authority is now a great deal closer to the definition of competent authority in the habitats regulations and, as with those regulations, bodies such as the Crown Estate Commissioners are competent marine authorities.
	I come now to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) in the course of an intervention on new clause 2(4). The majority of the sea bed covered by the Bill is owned by the Crown and new clause 2 is about the placement of markers to mark the site. If markers are to be placed, it is only right that the landowner's permission is sought. The refusal of permission to place a marker does not mean that a site cannot be fixed, but it is certainly right that that permission should be sought and I imagine that in the overwhelming majority of cases it would be given.
	I come now to several points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) and the many amendments that we have considered carefully. First, with regard to whether river estuaries are included, the answer is that they are if they are intertidal. As I said earlier, an MSSI can be notified in any area covered by tidal waters between the mean low water mark out to the limit of territorial waters.
	My hon. Friend asked about notification and advertisements and I can assure him that the appropriate nature conservation authority will, as a matter of best practice, try to involve all relevant persons about a notification. During the work on the review, I would expect English Nature to start looking more closely at the mechanisms for site notification. I have taken on board my hon. Friend's comments and I shall convey the organisations that he has listed to English Nature for consideration. Of course, the Secretary of State will and, I think, must, retain the power to direct conservation agencies if he or she feels that any relevant bodies have been missed.
	My hon. Friend mentioned advertisements. The Secretary of State retains a power to direct, but I am sure that the conservation body will consider placing appropriate advertisements in journals covering the industry, such as Fishing News, as well as using electronic means of communication, which could be especially important in respect of fishing fleets that go out to sea for considerable periods. My hon. Friend also asked about giving notice. That means notice in writing, but includes notice given by electronic means; we certainly do not want to shut our eyes to new technology.
	My hon. Friend referred to international best practice and mentioned Zakynthos and the Great Barrier reef. Obviously, the Government are advised on conservation issues by conservation agencies and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee. I assure him that those bodies are fully involved in the international scientific community and will take account of international best practice—that is obviously what we want to do—including site management that takes account of tourism interests.
	My hon. Friend also asked how competent marine authorities would take account of advice on what constitutes a potentially damaging operation and how representations would be considered. When deciding whether an operation is likely to damage the features for which a site has been designated, we would expect the competent marine authority to have regard to any list of potentially damaging operations that may be contained in the conservation statement for that site. I repeat the term "have regard to", which means taking the issues seriously, and considering them carefully and fully—it does not mean looking at them and discarding them—and is used in statute. In line with other considerations to which the competent marine authority must have regard when taking decisions, I must accept that the need for the operation may outweigh the pure nature conservation consideration. That is the essence of sustainable development.
	Finally, my hon. Friend asked me how representations would be considered. Of course, representations about notifications will be considered fully. Where possible, we will encourage a dialogue with English Nature to see whether the concerns can be resolved. That is the best way of proceeding, as it is best to achieve the least confrontational approach possible. Currently, we see no need for the confirming authority to consider those representations in public before reaching a decision, but we will obviously consider very carefully the procedures that we propose to adopt, taking account of what hon. Members have said, before the Bill is implemented. We will certainly ensure a full and fair process.
	The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) asked about the production of guidance. I repeat that it is our intention that guidance on the provisions will be published before the Bill takes effect. That makes sense; it ensures as far as possible that everyone fully understands exactly what is required. I can certainly give a full commitment on that point, but I do not see a need for statutory guidance. Indeed, it is much easier to change such guidance where appropriate if it is not statutory.
	The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome is correct that sea fisheries committees will be important in terms of the Bill's implementation. The list of competent marine authorities is drawn from a similar list for SSSIs on land. I can assure him that sea fisheries committees are competent marine authorities and are mentioned as one of the bodies capable of making management schemes. He asked about cross-border sites and made an ingenious suggestion about the Bristol channel. The general rule is that sites in England will be notified by English Nature, while in Wales they will be notified by the Countryside Council for Wales. There will be no cross-border sites, but sites can be notified to each other. Where sites abut, I expect their management to be carried out with a high degree of co-operation. In terms of the middle of the Bristol channel, those involved will have to talk fully with one another.
	I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes asked about whether archaeological sites such as wrecks were covered by the Bill. If fauna and flora in or near wrecks merit notification under the specified criteria, we expect such sites to be notified on that basis.
	The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome referred to protection of the air above the water. The Bill is primarily a site-protection mechanism. I understand that the protection afforded to species such as birds while airborne is covered by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The arrangement is similar to SSSIs on land, which protect the habitat, but not the air above it.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes also referred to seals, which are protected by the Conservation of Seals Act 1970. In the UK, four seal colonies are protected by European designation. Whether seal colonies will be covered by the Bill will be down to the criteria that may result from the work of the review of marine nature conservation.
	I think that I have dealt with all the points that have been raised, apart from those made by the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink), who asked whether the Bill would affect fisheries. Of course, sea fisheries committees already have powers to make byelaws that regulate fisheries for marine environment purposes, including the conservation of flora and fauna. Powers to control fishing already exist separately. The Bill will clarify the position of nationally important sites of marine interest and provide a mechanism through management schemes whereby appropriate operations may continue.
	I think that my very last point relates to what the hon. Gentleman asked me about the common fisheries policy. [Laughter.] Much as one might like this private Member's Bill, I do not think that it is an instrument for changing the common fisheries policy. Conclusions from the review of the policy may have implications for the operation and management of inshore fisheries, but we will have to await the outcome of the review before those implications can be assessed. I understand that the Commission's proposals are likely to emerge shortly and decisions are needed by the end of the year.
	I hope that in light of the assurances that I have given, the House will accept the new clause.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 3
	 — 
	Damage or destruction in a marine site

'(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he—
	(a) intentionally or recklessly damages or destroys any of the flora, fauna, or geological or physiographical features by reason of which a marine area is a marine site of special interest; and
	(b) knew that what he damaged or destroyed was within a marine site of special interest.
	(2) Subsection (1) does not have effect in relation to a competent marine authority acting in the exercise of its functions.
	(3) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1) to prove that the damage or destruction was the incidental result of a lawful operation and could not reasonably have been avoided.
	(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
	(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £20,000;
	(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine.
	(5) In determining the amount of any fine to be imposed on a person convicted of an offence under this section, the court must in particular have regard to any financial benefit which has accrued or appears likely to accrue to that person in consequence of the offence.
	(6) Where an offence under this section committed by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to any neglect on the part of—
	(a) any director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate; or
	(b) any person who was purporting to act in any such capacity,
	he, as well, as the body corporate, is guilty of the offence and is liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
	(7) Where the affairs of a body corporate are managed by its members, subsection (1) applies in relation to the acts and defaults of a member in connection with his functions of management as if he were a director of the body corporate.
	(8) An offence under this section is for the purposes of conferring jurisdiction to be deemed to have been committed in any place where the offender is found or to which he is first brought after the commission of the offence.'.—[Mr. Meacher.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Michael Meacher: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 26 to 29.

Michael Meacher: The Bill provides for no offences and the Government felt that that was an important omission. New clause 3 introduces a new offence of intentionally damaging or destroying the flora, fauna or geological or physiographical features of a marine site of special interest that make it of special interest, or being reckless as to whether the special interest would be destroyed or damaged. An offence is committed only if a person or body other than the competent marine authority damages or destroys the special feature, knowing that it is within an MSSI. The matter was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) during the previous debate. We have fixed the fine at the level of £20,000. I did not say then that this is a new offence of intentionally damaging or destroying or being reckless. That is important. An offence would not be committed in other circumstances.
	Examples of offences under the provision would include intentional reckless damage to or destruction of the special feature of an MSSI through the collection of material or direct impact by divers, the digging up of sea grass beds to put down moorings or breaking off and removing sea fans where the person knew that what he damaged or destroyed was within an MSSI. I hope that that reassures those who think that they may unwittingly and inadvertently fall foul of the Bill. We are talking about deliberate, reckless action.

Desmond Swayne: I take the Minister's point and congratulate him on the new clause, but I remind him that the provision includes a defence. What is the reason for that?

Michael Meacher: That is a good point. I shall come to that thread of my speech a little later—in fact, now.
	Subsection (3) of the new clause would provide a defence where the person can show that the activity that caused the damage was
	"the incidental result of a lawful operation and could not reasonably have been avoided."
	The defence is intended to protect someone who acts without malice or recklessness and is carrying out a lawful operation, but as a result may incidentally cause the relevant effects.

Desmond Swayne: If the offence is reckless or with intent, how can it be a defence to say that it was not carried out with malice?

Michael Meacher: If it is intentional action to damage or destroy flora or fauna, or if it is reckless, the defence will not apply. It is intended to protect people who do not fall into that category.
	There is nothing new in the provision. It is consistent with the defence contained in section 4(2)(c) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981—passed by a Conservative Government, whom we support in that respect—relating to the protection of birds and section 10(3)(c), which concerns the protection of schedule 5 wild animals.
	The penalties in subsection (4) are consistent with the SSSI provisions. Other parts of the new clause are more technical. For instance, it explains what happens where an offence is committed by a corporate body with the consent, or owing to the neglect, of an officer of the body, and confers jurisdiction on the courts in the place where an offender is found or first brought to after the offence has been committed.
	The precedent that we had in mind for the offence was section 28P(6) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 concerning SSSIs. That section was framed primarily to discourage actions, mainly by persons other than owners or occupiers of land, which were causing damage. A similar disincentive is required for marine sites.
	I am aware of concerns that activities carried out in pursuit of the public rights of navigation and fishing would be assessed against the provisions of the new offence. However, I stress that the offence is committed only where a person intends to damage or recklessly damages the protected features of an MSSI. The person must have known that what he damaged was in an MSSI. The defence that I described applies where a member of the public is carrying out a lawful activity such as navigation, and damage to an MSSI-protected feature is the incidental result. However, he could not avail himself of the defence had there been reasonable steps that he could have taken to avoid the damage, but he did not take them. Ultimately, the court must make a judgment on the matter.

John Randall: When we start talking about legal niceties it is as well for me to keep out of it, but I presume that if someone was warned that their action would be reckless and they carried on, there would be no defence.

Michael Meacher: Yes. That would be regarded as an intent recklessly to damage, having been warned that such an action would be contrary to the provisions.
	I should emphasise that the main purpose of the offence is to act as a deterrent. A fine of £20,000 should be a significant deterrent to individual acts of irresponsibility that result in deliberate or reckless damage or destruction.
	I shall deal with the enforcement of the provision. I appreciate that the enforcement of nature conservation legislation in the marine environment is a difficult issue, especially as no one body is responsible for it. It is clear that the enforcement of marine offences requires clarification. That is why the Partnership for Action against Wildlife Crime, sometimes known as PAW, which is co-chaired by my Department, is setting up a sub-group to consider how marine enforcement can be improved. The Bill is not an appropriate vehicle to address that wider issue, and I take the point made by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall).
	In its interim report published last year, the review of marine nature conservation recommended that the Government should commission an exercise to identify best practice in marine enforcement both here and abroad. That will examine available methods of enforcement and common approaches concerning the relationship between regulators and sea users. The results of the review will be taken into account when looking more closely at the enforcement of the Bill's provisions.
	Amendments Nos. 26 to 29 are principally designed to clarify the byelaw-making procedures in clause 6. Amendment No. 26 provides that the consent of the Secretary of State, or the National Assembly for Wales in respect of Wales, is needed for a nature conservation agency to make byelaws for the protection of MSSIs. That is consistent with section 37(1) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The power to make byelaws will be a useful tool for agencies to use in trying to modify behaviour where it is causing damage to features of acknowledged importance. It will draw on the examination of enforcement in the marine environment to which I referred.
	We thought it would be helpful to rectify this omission in the Bill. I commend the new clause and amendments to the House.

John Randall: I thank the Minister for including the new clause. It would not have been appropriate for me to include measures such as fines in a private Member's Bill. I am grateful to the Government for dealing with that, because without proper deterrence such legislation is not necessarily worth the paper it is written on.

Desmond Swayne: I merely want to dwell on the content of my intervention. I acknowledge that the Minister has done a service to the Bill by introducing the new clause, but I am concerned about the defence. I accept that my concern might be due to my limitations in understanding such legal matters, but it is worth reinforcing the point.
	The offence is clear—it is intentionally or recklessly to damage or destroy flora or fauna if the defendant knows that what he has damaged or destroyed is within a marine site of special interest. It follows logically from that that the defence would be that the defendant did not know he was within a designated area or that he was not intentionally reckless in his activities. However, to include a defence that that might be an incidental consequence of an otherwise lawful activity undermines the nature of the offence.
	Given that my experience of the sort of activities that we are talking about is limited and my expertise does not extend to maritime matters, it would be helpful if the Minister could provide examples to which the defence might apply. Perhaps he could give some examples of the activities that might destroy the maritime flora and fauna, but would otherwise be lawful and provide an adequate defence under the Bill. The new clause seems to let people off the hook.
	People are annoyed and frustrated about damage to SSSIs on land when they see designation of those sites being completely ignored by developers or landowners and there is insufficient penalty to provide a disincentive. In framing the new clause, the Minister has dealt with that: he has provided an adequate disincentive through a fine. I should hate to see that undermined by this defence. I think that my argument has force, and I note from the body language of Labour Members with greater legal experience than I have that that view is not confined to me. I would certainly welcome greater clarification from the Minister.

Andrew Dismore: I should like to follow the points made by the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), because I suspect that my right hon. Friend the Minister has his mens rea jumbled up in this new clause.
	Subsection (1) of the new clause sets out a clear offence of intentionally or recklessly causing damage, but I am concerned about the defence, which seems more appropriate to damage caused negligently. The new clause provides an unnecessary defence. Let us suppose, for example, that a ship was in distress at sea in a storm and the ship's captain dropped anchor. I presume that that would be a lawful operation. If it caused damage, it could be said that the damage could not reasonably have been avoided. When the ship's captain dropped anchor, he was not intentionally trying to destroy the flora or fauna under the sea bed, but was trying to save the lives of the people on the ship; nor was he acting recklessly.
	It is difficult to imagine circumstances in which someone intentionally or recklessly damages the sea bed or anything appertaining to it, yet at the same time is engaging in a lawful operation that could not reasonably have been avoided.
	Further to the point made by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall), a warning would be wholly irrelevant. One could issue a warning that what someone was about to do would intentionally or recklessly cause damage and that person could knowingly go ahead and do it, but he would still have a defence under new clause 3(3). Thus any warning becomes otiose. My right hon. Friend the Minister should consider whether subsection (3) is needed. I believe that it would be needed only if the offence were intentionally, recklessly or negligently to damage the sea bed. In those circumstances, I see a need for the defence, but as matters stand it drives a potential coach and horses through the offence.
	I refer now to the corporate liability. I am pleased to see that we are lifting the corporate veil and going to the directors, managers and secretaries of a company if they are behind the game. As the Minister knows, I have been keen on this concept in respect of corporate killing, on which I have yet to win the argument. However, it is important. I am concerned about the reference to neglect on the part of the director, manager, secretary or so forth, because we have the mens rea of neglect while the offence itself has the mens rea of intention or reckless behaviour. That seems to be contradictory. If a manager intentionally or recklessly consents to or connives in the offence being committed, so be it, but why should a negligent director face a greater risk of penalty than the person causing the offence?
	We must have another look at this provision and either make the offence one that includes negligence with knowledge, which it would be easy to do, in which case the defence would stand, or remove the defence and redraft the director's liability to bring it more in line with the offence.
	There is a series of different interlocking issues which do not quite add up and which I regret to say would probably provide a field day for my professional colleagues, were I still practising as a solicitor. I still have a practising certificate, but I am pleased to say that I am not taking cases now. I have more important things to do.

David Heath: The hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) has covered some of the ground that I intended to cover. There are internal contradictions in the offences laid out in new clause 3. I welcome the fact that the Government have introduced the new clause, but it needs a little revision, because it is hard to reconcile the offence in subsection (1) with the defence in subsection (3).
	I suppose that it is conceivable that somebody might find himself with a snagged net and believe that to retrieve the net he must cause intentional damage, which might however be held to be incidental to a legal operation.

Andrew Dismore: rose—

David Heath: I am about to be interrupted by a member of the legal profession, who will tell me why I am wrong.

Andrew Dismore: In those circumstances, the motivating factor behind the act would be not to cause damage but to release the net. One could not say, therefore, that the intent would be to cause damage. It would also be difficult to bring the action within the definition of recklessness, so I am not entirely with the hon. Gentleman on that point.

David Heath: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has more experience of such matters than I have. I was merely suggesting that I could conceive of a circumstance in which that might apply. I agree with the hon. Gentleman's basic hypothesis that, given that the offence is termed intentional or reckless damage, the prosecuting authority must establish that the damage was intentional or reckless in order to achieve a prosecution. Clearly, any action that is accidental or incidental does not fall within that category.
	My concern is almost the reverse: the provision under subsection (1)(b) and the need for the prosecuting authority to establish that the defendant knew that the damage or destruction was within a marine site of special interest. That is difficult to prove to the satisfaction of a court. Unless a specific notification has been given, it is hard to prove that the person at that time knew that he was in an MSSI.
	We have had similar debates in other capacities, and I have always preferred the absolute offence against mitigating factors, rather than the requirement that the burden of proof be put on the prosecuting authorities to establish not only that the damage was intentional or reckless but that the person knew about it. Had the provision been phrased in such a way that the person might reasonably have been expected to know that he or she was in an MSSI, that would be a different matter, because there would not be an absolute need to prove that the person was in possession of that fact when the offence was committed.
	The issue of whether the wording is right is a minor quibble, although it will need to be tested at some stage, and may be tested in another place. I broadly agree with the Minister's proposals.
	I also agree with the point made by the hon. Member for Hendon about negligence by a body corporate. If such a body has simply not given clear enough instructions to its staff, why should it necessarily be guilty of an offence? If an instruction has not been issued, that does not constitute a deliberate act of intentional or reckless damage or destruction.
	Some guidance on byelaws would be of assistance. I strongly support a legal framework for the protection of MSSIs, but it must be fair to all those who might be affected. Prior consultation on the substance of the byelaws with particular regard for the interests of those who use the seas for various purposes is important. We should consider not only the needs of the fishing industry at large—which are important—but the way that byelaws might affect low-impact fishing methods: for example, the mackerel handliners, bass longliners, cove shell fishermen or even the few remaining mudhorse fishermen on the mudflats of Bridgwater bay.
	Those activities would not have a significant effect on conservation areas but could be caught by byelaws that were unintentionally framed too widely. I hope that proper regard will be paid to those interests in the drawing up and confirming of byelaws.

Helen Clark: My remarks will cover some familiar issues, but as it is important that these views are fully recorded, I beg the indulgence of the House if some of my points have already been made.
	I am pleased to be able to contribute to the debate on this important Bill. I spoke in favour of it on Second Reading and had the honour of serving as a member of the Standing Committee that considered it. It is clear from the many new clauses and amendments that have been tabled that my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall)—the Bill's promoter—have worked extremely closely together since those proceedings, and I congratulate them on their constructive approach.
	I also want to highlight the wide support for the Bill throughout the country. Anyone who thinks that this is a side issue is not living in the real world. Many Members on both sides of the House have received letters from constituents, whether our constituencies are land or sea-bound—Peterborough is certainly not sea-bound—asking us to support the Bill. That demonstrates once again the deep concern for the marine environment.
	I was pleased to receive a letter from the Wildlife and Countryside Link—its representatives might be in the House today—which is an umbrella organisation for environmental groups that express support for the successful consideration of the Bill.
	Government new clause 3 is a very welcome addition, as we have stressed. It will mean that anyone found intentionally or recklessly damaging or destroying any of the interests of an MSSI, when they knew that what they had damaged or destroyed lay within such a site, could be guilty of an offence. However, I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to clarify a few issues in relation to the new offence.
	In making my first point, I am traversing familiar ground. The Government propose to add a defence, but, like the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), I am concerned about that. The provision states that, where the damage or disturbance was the incidental result of an otherwise lawful activity, the person causing the damage would not be guilty of an offence. The SSSI protection measures provided under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981—to which my right hon. Friend referred—do not provide that defence because fishing is a lawful activity. There is a public right to fish and we should protect it. It is unclear why such a defence is needed for marine SSIs or how it will work in practice in the marine environment.
	The marine environment is subject to the exercise of public rights—more so than on land. One example is the public right to fish. It is possible that the exercise of such rights could result in intentional or reckless damage to a marine SSI; for example, weighing anchor within a lophelia coral reef—although I have never tried that. Will my right hon. Friend clarify whether damage from the exercise of such public rights would be considered an incidental result of an otherwise lawful activity, even if the person carrying out the activity had been informed that it was damaging a site? Will he also confirm whether someone who exercised a public right, but had been informed that in doing so they were damaging, or would damage, a marine SSI, could not then rely on the
	"incidental result of a lawful operation"
	defence to escape censure?
	I shall now cover some new ground. The second difference between the offence in the 1981 Act and new clause 3 is that the Act refers not only to intentional and reckless damage or destruction but also to disturbance of notified fauna. The issue of reckless disturbance of marine wildlife is close to my heart, as hon. Members on both sides of the House are aware. In February 2000, I introduced the Marine Wildlife Protection Bill—with the able support of the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society and other non-governmental organisations—to tackle the problems of harassment of, and disturbance to, marine wildlife by motorised marine leisure vessels and jet-skis.
	My Bill would not only have enabled local authorities to protect marine wildlife and promote safety by prohibiting the use of motorised marine leisure vessels in coastal areas, but would have made it an offence to disturb marine wildlife recklessly or intentionally. Since then, the Government have passed the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, with which I was proud to be involved. The Act was a significant and welcome step forward for nature conservation. As a result of it, there is an offence of intentional or reckless disturbance of whales, dolphins, porpoises and basking sharks—something which my Bill also sought to address. That was an important change, on which the Government can build in this Bill by extending that provision to other wildlife.
	One of my major concerns when I introduced my Bill was the level of hidden disturbance, and indeed persecution, of marine wildlife. I had hoped that this Bill would face up to those problems and tackle them head on. Therefore, I respectfully ask the Minister to clarify why, as a departure from the offence in the Wildlife and Countryside Act, disturbance of fauna is not included in the offence proposed by new clause 3.

Michael Meacher: There are some concerns about the new clause, although I hope to allay them and obviously we shall consider further what has been said. First, the hon. Member for Oxbridge—[Laughter.] That was a Freudian slip. The hon. Member for Uxbridge said that he was grateful for the Government's avidity; I thank him for that.
	The hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) discussed further the concerns that he adumbrated earlier and asked for examples of where the defence might apply and why it was necessary. During preparation of the Bill, various persons and organisations have asked us what its impact would be in terms of the commission of offences. The most obvious examples are the fisheries industry and the public engaging in recreational navigation. We believe that it is useful for a defence to be made explicit in the Bill because it assures those persons and organisations of its parameters.
	I entirely understand the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) that it would be otiose to make the defence explicit. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) said that either an offence is committed under subsection (1) or it is not, and asked why, if it is not, we need a defence, because the defence would be that no offence had been committed under subsection (1). I also understand that argument. However, the fact that we were approached by the fisheries industry and some others for assurance persuaded us that the inclusion of the defence was justified.
	I explained how the defence would operate. Perhaps I should add that if a person were charged, they would certainly need to prove that the defence was available to them in those circumstances, but I repeat that the clause is consistent with provisions in other nature conservation legislation, which, as far as I am aware, operates without problems. However, I am sure that further clarification of the provisions of the clause will be made in the guidance that we intend to introduce; I am glad to give the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome an assurance on that point.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon raised the issue of corporate liability and the negligence of directors. Directors are liable alongside the corporation only when, in the management of the corporation, they have consented to the offence, connived in committing the offence or been neglectful about whether the corporation committed the offence. The negligence of directors can lead to their becoming criminally liable along with the corporation, where it leads to the corporation's committing a criminal offence. I believe that I heard the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome say that he wanted us to consider again whether we should include negligence with knowledge. Perhaps I should discuss the matter further with him afterwards. I am quite prepared to consider the matter in the light of what he says.
	I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mrs. Clark) for introducing a Bill on a similar subject and for her long-term commitment to the marine environment. She asked whether the right of anchorage of vessels would be removed by the clause. The customary right of anchoring would of course be subject to the provisions of the clause in the same way as the public rights of fishing and navigation would. I do not see why a person who drops anchor knowing that he or she is in an MSSI and intentionally or recklessly damages a special feature by reason of which it has been notified—such as a coral reef, which she mentioned—should be immune from prosecution. Of course the defence in subsection (3) would be available, where the criteria for the defence were met, but I would obviously expect the defence to apply where it was necessary for a vessel to drop anchor because of force majeure, as was stated in the debate, or because it was in distress, or for the purpose of rendering assistance to persons or ships in danger or distress.
	My hon. Friend also asked whether we could extend the provisions to include the disturbance of wildlife, which was the thrust of her Bill. Of course, this is a private Member's Bill, not a Government Bill. Although the disturbance of wildlife is a relevant and interesting phenomenon, it raises further, considerable issues, such as how it should be defined, and I do not think that the Bill represents the channel to deal with them.
	Finally, my hon. Friend asked why disturbance of fauna is not included in the offence under the Bill. I should point out, as I have already, that the Bill is promoted by the hon. Member for Uxbridge. Given the amount of Government involvement, hon. Members might think that it has become a quasi-Government Bill, but it is a private Member's Bill.
	As I said earlier, the Government feel strongly that a criminal offence of intentional or reckless damage should be incorporated to strengthen the protection offered by the Bill, and that that offence should be relevant and proportionate to the marine environment. Similar provisions were introduced in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and apply when a specific threat is posed by disturbance of certain species. Disturbance of marine species is more relevant to species-protection legislation rather than to site-based mechanisms in the Bill. My hon. Friend correctly drew attention to a gap that remains, but I do not think that we can resolve the issue in considering the Bill. Again, on that basis, I hope that, although there are doubts about the operation of the defence, those legal provisions will be acceptable to the House. They seem to have general support.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 4
	 — 
	Meaning of "marine area" and "marine site of special interest"

'(1) For the purposes of this Act—
	a "marine area" is any part of the sea in or adjacent to England or Wales, or any land covered (continuously or intermittently) by tidal waters in or adjacent to England or Wales;
	a "marine site of special interest" is a marine area in respect of which a notification has effect under this Act.
	(2) A marine area notified as a marine site of special interest—
	(a) may extend from the mean low water mark up to the seaward limit of territorial waters;
	(b) may include the sea bed, the soil under the sea bed to a depth of 30 metres, and the water column.
	(3) A marine site of special interest must not include—
	(a) any part of an area of land which has been notified under section 28(1) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (c. 69) (sites of special scientific interest);
	(b) any part of a European marine site, unless the reason for which that part of the marine area is a marine site of special interest is a reason other than that for which it is a European marine site.
	(4) In section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (c. 69) (sites of special scientific interest), after subsection (10) insert—
	"(11) An area notified under this section must not include any part of an area of land which has been notified as a marine site of special interest under the Marine Wildlife Conservation Act 2002 (c. 00).".
	(5) If any part of a marine site of special interest is, after it has been notified as such, included in a European marine site, that part ceases to be a marine site of special interest, unless the reason for which that part is a marine site of special interest is a reason other than that for which it is a European marine site.
	(6) References in this Act to the reasons for which a marine area is a European marine site are references to—
	(a) the natural habitat types in Annex I to the Habitats Directive hosted by the site;
	(b) the native species in Annex II to the Habitats Directive hosted by the site; or
	(c) the bird species for which the site is classified pursuant to Article 4(1) or (2) of the Wild Birds Directive.'.—[Mr. Meacher.]
	Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 5
	 — 
	General interpretation

'(1) In this Act—
	"the appropriate nature conservation body" means—
	(a) in relation to the sea in or adjacent to England, or land covered by tidal waters in or adjacent to England, English Nature;
	(b) in relation to the sea in or adjacent to Wales, or land covered by tidal waters in or adjacent to Wales, the Countryside Council for Wales;
	"the confirming authority" means—
	(a) the Secretary of State, as respects a notification or byelaws made by English Nature;
	(b) the National Assembly for Wales, as respects a notification or byelaws made by the Countryside Council for Wales;
	"competent marine authority" means—
	(a) a Minister of the Crown (within the meaning of the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975 (c. 26)) or a Government department;
	(b) the National Assembly for Wales;
	(c) in England, a county, district or London borough council, or the Common Council of the City of London;
	(d) in Wales, a county council or county borough council;
	(e) a person holding an office—
	(i) under the Crown,
	(ii) created or continued in existence by a public general Act of Parliament, or
	(iii) the remuneration in respect of which is paid out of money provided by Parliament;
	(f) statutory undertaker (meaning the persons referred to in section 262(1), (3) and (6) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (c. 8)); and
	(g) any other public body of any description;
	"European marine site" means a European marine site which is included in the European sites register maintained by the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales under the Natural Habitats Regulations;
	"the Habitats Directive" means Council Directive 92/43/EC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, as amended from time to time;
	"the Natural Habitats Regulations" means the Conservation (Natural Habitats, etc.) Regulations 1994 (S.I. 1994/2716), as they have effect from time to time;
	"the sea adjacent to Wales" is to be construed in accordance with Article 6 of the National Assembly for Wales (Transfer of Functions) Order 1999 (S.I. 1999/672), as that Article may be amended or replaced from time to time by Order under the Government of Wales Act 1998 (c. 38);
	"the Wild Birds Directive" means Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds, as amended from time to time.'
	(2) The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument amend the definition of "competent marine authority" in relation to marine sites of special interest which are the subject of a notification by English Nature.
	(3) The National Assembly for Wales may by order made by statutory instrument amend the definition of "competent marine authority" in relation to marine sites of special interest which are the subject of a notification by the Countryside Council for Wales.
	(4) A statutory instrument containing an order under subsection (2) is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.—[Mr. Meacher.]
	Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 6
	 — 
	Notification of marine sites

'(1) If the appropriate nature conservation body is of the opinion that a marine area is a marine site of special interest by reason of any of its flora, fauna, or geological or physiographical features, it may notify that fact.
	(2) The confirming authority must, after consulting the appropriate nature conservation body, publish criteria in accordance with which the bodies are to determine whether a marine area is a marine site of special interest for the purposes of this Act.
	(3) The confirming authority may, after consulting the appropriate nature conservation bodies, revise criteria published under subsection (2).
	(4) If a body decides to make a notification under subsection (1), it must notify—
	(a) the confirming authority;
	(b) so far as reasonably practicable, each competent marine authority which exercises functions in relation to the marine area;
	(c) any other competent marine authority which in the opinion of the body should be notified;
	(d) any other person who the body is directed by the confirming authority to notify.
	(5) The body must also publish the notification, on as many occasions as the confirming authority may direct, in—
	(a) the London Gazette;
	(b) at least one local newspaper circulating in an area near to the marine area; and
	(c) such other publications as the confirming authority may direct.
	(6) A notification under this section has effect from the date on which it is first published in the London Gazette.'.—[Mr. Meacher.]
	Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 7
	 — 
	Further provisions about notification

'(1) A notification under section 1 must specify the time (not being less than three months from the date of the giving of the notification) within which representations or objections with respect to it may be made to the confirming authority.
	(2) A notification must also—
	(a) specify the flora, fauna, or geological or physiographical features by reason of which the marine area is a marine site of special interest;
	(b) contain a statement of the appropriate nature conservation body's objectives in relation to the conservation of that flora or fauna, or those features ("the conservation objectives") and the body's views about how the site should be managed for the purpose of achieving those objectives.
	(3) The confirming authority, having regard to any representations or objections made under subsection (1), may before the end of the period of nine months beginning with the date on which the notification is first published in the London Gazette, give notice to the appropriate nature conservation body that the notification is—
	(a) confirmed;
	(b) withdrawn; or
	(c) modified;
	and the notice must include a statement of reasons for a withdrawal or modification.
	(4) The notification may be modified by the confirming authority only by—-
	(a) reducing the size of the marine site of special interest (but so that the site remains within the boundaries of the site in respect of which the notification was made);
	(b) removing the specification of one or more of the species of flora or fauna, or one or more of the geological or physiographical features;
	(c) amending the statement relating to the conservation objectives.
	(5) A notification ceases to have effect—
	(a) at the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which notice is given to the appropriate nature conservation body that the notification is withdrawn;
	(b) if no notice is given under subsection (3), at the end of the period of nine months beginning with the date on which the notification is first published in the London Gazette.
	(6) A notification has effect as modified by a notice under subsection (3) at the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which notice of the modification is given to the appropriate nature conservation body.
	(7) The appropriate nature conservation body must so far as reasonably practicable notify each person who was notified under section 1(4)(b) to (d)—
	(a) of a notice of confirmation, withdrawal or modification under subsection (3); or
	(b) that no notice has been given under subsection (3) before the end of the period of nine months mentioned in subsection (5)(b).'.—[Mr. Meacher.]
	Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 8
	 — 
	Modification or denotification

'(1) The appropriate nature conservation body may notify a modification of a notification—
	(a) at any time after notice confirming the notification is given; or
	(b) if the notification is modified by the confirming authority, at any time after the notification has effect as modified.
	(2) If the appropriate nature conservation body is of the opinion that a marine area is no longer a marine site of special interest by reason of any of the matters specified in section 1(1), a modification under subsection (1) may cancel the notification in respect of the area.
	(3) If the body decides to make a notification under subsection (1), it must notify—
	(a) the confirming authority;
	(b) so far as reasonably practicable, each competent marine authority which exercises functions in relation to the marine area;
	(c) any other competent marine authority which in the opinion of the body should be notified;
	(d) any other person who the body is directed by the confirming authority to notify.
	(4) The body must also publish the notification, on as many occasions as the confirming authority may direct, in—
	(a) the London Gazette;
	(b) at least one local newspaper circulating in or near to the marine area; and
	(c) such other publications as the confirming authority may direct.
	(5) A notification under subsection (1), other than a notification which is a cancellation as mentioned in subsection (2), has effect from the date on which it is first published in the London Gazette.
	(6) A notification under subsection (1) must specify the time (not being less than three months from the date of the giving of the notification) within which representations or objections with respect to it may be made to the confirming authority.
	(7) The confirming authority, having regard to any representations or objections made under subsection (6), may before the end of the period of nine months beginning with the date on which the notification is first published in the London Gazette, give notice to the appropriate nature conservation body that the notification is—
	(a) confirmed;
	(b) withdrawn; or
	(c) modified;
	and the notice must include a statement of the reasons for a withdrawal or modification.
	(8) If a notification under subsection (1) would reduce the size of the site or cancel the notification, the confirming authority may modify that part of the notification only by increasing the size of the marine site (but so that the site remains within the boundaries of the site in respect of which the notification which is proposed to be modified was made).
	(9) Apart from that, the confirming authority may modify the notification only by—
	(a) removing or reinstating the specification of one or more of the species of flora or fauna, or one or more of the geological or physiographical features;
	(b) amending the statement relating to the conservation objectives.
	(10) A notification under subsection (1) which is a cancellation as mentioned in subsection (2)—
	(a) has effect, or has effect as modified, at the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which notice is given under subsection (7) to the appropriate nature conservation body that the notification is confirmed or modified;
	(b) if no such notice is given or notice is given that the notification is withdrawn, does not have effect.
	(11) A notification under subsection (1), other than a notification which is a cancellation as mentioned in subsection (2), ceases to have effect—
	(a) at the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which notice is given to the appropriate nature conservation body that the notification is withdrawn;
	(b) if no notice is given under subsection (7), at the end of the period of nine months beginning with the date on which the notification is first published in the London Gazette.
	(12) A notification under subsection (1), other than a notification which is a cancellation as mentioned in subsection (2), has effect as modified by a notice under subsection (7) at the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which notice of the modification is given to the appropriate nature conservation body.
	(13) The appropriate nature conservation body must so far as reasonably practicable notify each person who was notified under subsection (3)(b) to (d)—
	(a) of a notice of confirmation, withdrawal or modification under subsection (7); or
	(b) that no notice has been given under subsection (7) before the end of the period of nine months mentioned in subsection (11)(b).'.—[Mr. Meacher.]
	Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 9
	 — 
	Denotification in relation to european marine sites

'(1) If any part of a marine site of special interest ceases to be included in such a site because it is included in a European marine site, the appropriate nature conservation body must notify—
	(a) the confirming authority;
	(b) so far as reasonably practicable, each competent marine authority which exercises functions in relation to the site;
	(c) any other competent marine authority which in the opinion of the body should be notified;
	(d) any other person who the body is directed by the confirming authority to notify.
	(2) The body must also publish the notification, on as many occasions as the confirming authority may direct, in—
	(a) the London Gazette;
	(b) at least one local newspaper circulating in an area near to the site; and
	(c) such other publication as the confirming authority may direct.
	(3) A notification under this section has effect from the date on which it is published in the London Gazette.'.—[Mr. Meacher.]
	Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 10
	 — 
	Application to crown

'(1) This Act binds the Crown, except that nothing in this Act affects Her Majesty in her private capacity.
	(2) Byelaws made under section 6 may apply to Crown land only if the appropriate authority (within the meaning of section 101(11) of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act (1949 c. 97)) consents.
	(3) Crown land means land an interest in which—
	(a) belongs to Her Majesty in the right of the Crown or the Duchy of Lancaster;
	(b) belongs to the Duchy of Cornwall;
	(c) belongs to a government department; or
	(d) is held in trust for Her Majesty for the purposes of a government department.
	(4) The Crown is not criminally liable as a result of any provision made by or under this Act.
	(5) Subsection (4) does not affect the application of any provision made by or under this Act in relation to persons in the public service of the Crown.'.—[Mr. Meacher.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Michael Meacher: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
	It is customary for a Bill to be specific about the extent to which it applies to the Crown, and the new clause provides the necessary explanation. It indicates that the Bill shall bind the Crown but that the Crown should not be criminally liable, and that includes liability under byelaws, which may only be made on Crown land with the consent of the appropriate authority. It defines what constitutes Crown land, using a definition akin to that in section 67 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The new clause deals with an important aspect of the Bill because most of the sea bed in territorial waters belongs to the Crown, and both Departments and persons holding office under the Crown are defined as competent marine authorities in the amended Bill.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 1
	 — 
	Marine sites of special interest

Amendment made: No. 30, in page 1, line 1, leave out Clause 1.—[Mr. Meacher.]

Clause 2
	 — 
	Duty to compile and maintain a register of marine sites of special interest

Michael Meacher: I beg to move amendment No. 31, in page 3, line 18, leave out from beginning to "available" in line 20 and insert—
	'(1) Each appropriate nature conservation body must maintain, in such form as it thinks fit, a register of marine sites of special interest.
	(2) The register under subsection (1) must include the co–ordinates of each marine site of special interest and a chart illustrating its boundaries.
	(3) A copy of the register maintained under subsection (1) must be'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 53, in page 3, line 21, at end insert—
	'in a land–based location as conveniently near as is reasonably practicable to the marine site of special interest.'.

Michael Meacher: The purpose of the amendment is to make drafting improvements to clause 2, which relates to the duty of the nature conservation bodies to compile and maintain a register of marine sites of special interest. It also adds the need for the register to include the co-ordinates of each site and a chart illustrating site boundaries to ensure that they are clearly identifiable.
	A copy of the register must be available for public inspection. It is reasonable to expect the appropriate nature conservation body to keep a copy at each of its local offices that cover the area relating to the MSSI. With that assurance, I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) not to press amendment No. 53 to a vote, because it is not necessary.

John Randall: I am a little confused about how people who are unaware of the presence of an MSSI will be made aware of its existence if the information is not held by the United Kingdom Hydrographic Office or included on maritime charts. They might not know that they should visit the offices of English Nature or whatever. I am not suggesting that the information should be included immediately. I am not sure of the system, but perhaps it can be added when the charts are revised. In addition, why is there no duty on English Nature or the Countryside Council for Wales to notify the Hydrographic Office of the boundaries of MSSIs?

Andrew Dismore: It is important, perhaps for the same reasons as the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) adumbrated, that people know where the boundaries of the marine sites are located. Having the maps in the headquarters of a nature conservation body in London is not much use if a site is off Cornwall or Yorkshire. It should not be beyond the wit of man to make the charts available in the local headquarters and on the internet so that people can look them up even if they are a long distance away.
	It is important that we make every effort possible to ensure that everyone who lives, works or participates in recreational activities in an area knows where the boundaries lie. The best way to do that is to give the sites as much publicity as possible locally.

Desmond Swayne: The point is simply that such measures are desirable. We have just discussed the provisions of new clause 3 in relation to offences. An offence of damaging an MSSI is not committed if the person who does the damage does not know that the site is part of an MSSI. To provide that the information has to appear on all the available charts is elementary. There should be a duty to notify the information to the United Kingdom Hydrographic Office so that it can be put on the charts.

Michael Meacher: The debate has centred on ensuring that people have access locally to information on the existence and boundaries of the MSSI. I fully accept the points made.
	The hon. Member for Uxbridge asked whether a copy of site boundaries would be shown in the Hydrographic Office, and whether that information would be placed on maritime charts. We certainly expect English Nature to forward a copy of site boundaries to the Hydrographic Office, although whether to mark the boundaries on Admiralty charts would be a matter for the Hydrographic Office. It would be helpful if that were done, but I do not think that it should be a statutory requirement.
	I entirely agree that such information should be available locally. In my opening remarks I said that I certainly expect the appropriate nature conservation body to keep a copy at each of its local offices covering the area relating to the MSSI. Such provision would give persons in the vicinity who are likely to use the relevant waters a perfectly adequate opportunity to acquaint themselves fully with the fact that an MSSI is present locally and with its precise boundaries. I do not disagree with amendment No. 53, but its provisions are already covered by the Government's proposals.

Desmond Swayne: The question is simple. Would it be a defence for someone in a leisure craft who had damaged an MSSI by some operation, for example, by weighing anchor, to argue that there was no offence because he did not know that the area was part of an MSSI because the Admiralty chart he was using did not contain the information?

Michael Meacher: My belief is that that would not constitute a defence because the person in question had not taken all reasonable steps to acquaint himself with the information he needed. One cannot rely with certainty on the contents of Admiralty charts, although as I said it would be helpful if the information were included. I would expect such a person to contact other bodies that could provide a guarantee and certain clarification. On that basis, I hope that Government amendment No. 31 is acceptable to the House.
	Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3
	 — 
	Competent marine authorities: duties

Andrew Dismore: I beg to move amendment No. 54, in page 3, line 24, after "take", insert "all".

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments Nos. 32 to 34.
	Amendment No. 58, in page 3, line 38, leave out "(where one exists)".
	Amendment No. 59, in page 3, line 38, leave out "a" and insert "the".
	Amendment No. 60, in page 3, line 39, at end insert "concerned".
	Government amendments Nos. 35 to 37.

Andrew Dismore: To a large extent my amendments have been overtaken by the Government amendments. My intention was to ensure that the marine authority did not merely take any old reasonable steps but took all the reasonable steps it could take to exercise its functions, and to deal with the fact that there is no point having an MSSI if there is no management scheme. That harks back to remarks I made previously. Subject to the Minister's comments on the Government amendments, I do not intend to press mine.

John Randall: Government amendment No. 32 would amend clause 3. It provides that a competent marine authority
	"must notify the appropriate nature conservation body"
	before carrying out or consenting to others carrying out operations which in its opinion—those words are important—are likely to damage a site.
	There are some concerns. When a competent marine authority wishes to carry out, or to give its consent for others to carry out, operations that are likely to damage in the context of the conservation statement, it will be required under clause 3, as amended by amendment No. 32, to consult the relevant nature conservation agency. That is unless subsection (9) of amendment No. 36 applies.
	I am also interested in who will set benchmarks on which operations constitute damage to the interest of a marine site of special interest, so as to guide competent authorities in identifying damaging activities under clause 3.
	I am concerned that there is no requirement to review existing consents. Perhaps the Minister will clarify what arrangements exist for English Nature and the Countryside Council for Wales to request competent marine authorities to review existing consent activities to assess their compatibility with an MSSI. What will happen if a competent marine authority fails to review an existing consent activity, having been asked to do so, if that results in continued or further damage to a marine site of special scientific interest?
	Government amendment No. 37 removes the duty on English Nature and the Countryside Council for Wales to report on implementation of the Bill. Will the Minister confirm that English Nature and the Countryside Council for Wales will be expected to monitor the status and health of the MSSIs, and to report on implementation of the Bill? Will the Minister confirm that the two bodies will be provided with adequate resources to enable them to carry out the necessary monitoring and reporting? If they cannot carry out those duties, there is not so much import.

Mark Simmonds: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) on all the hard work that he has put in to his excellent Bill so far. I thank the Minister, because I know that he has been working hard on the Bill.
	I shall make some brief comments about the sea fisheries committees. I am glad that they are now included under the heading of "competent marine authority". The committees are intrinsically inshore fishing management bodies. Fishermen in Boston are deeply unhappy with the current arrangements and workings of the local committee. Better funding is needed for these bodies, and I hope that extra funding will be given. The committees will have to implement new powers, which are set out in the Bill.
	The committees are struggling to meet existing responsibilities, both in general terms and environmentally, especially under the European Union habitats and birds directives. That is due specifically to a lack of funds.
	The committees are funded by local authority levies, and there needs to be a review. The committees need to be funded by a mixture of local authority levies and central Government funding. That would enable them to have financial security. At the same time, they would maintain local responsibility and a certain amount of local control. This view was supported by the Select Committee, which suggested that
	"the funding arrangements for the SFCs be re-examined to establish a secure, permanent, financial framework within which they can plan and perform their duties."
	It may be appropriate to take the opportunity look at the structure and lack of success of SFCs, which are not working.

Desmond Swayne: Briefly, my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) has drawn to my attention a key point in amendment No. 54 which I had not spotted. The actions that the competent marine authority proposes to carry out or to which it proposes to give its consent are new actions, not pre-existing ones. Having re-read the amendment carefully, I believe that that is implicit rather than explicit. Will the Minister confirm whether that is the case, or will the amendment apply to actions currently under way? The position on the actions which the competent authority proposes to take is clearer than that on any consents that it may give. Any action that it may take will be taken anew every time, but any consent already given does not necessarily have to be renewed and reviewed.

Michael Meacher: I am grateful for the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) and his acceptance of the broad thrust of the Government amendments, which meet the requirements expressed in his amendments.
	I shall briefly spell out the intention of the Government amendments, some of which have been questioned. Their purpose is to clarify the way in which competent marine authorities should act when proposing to carry out operations or authorise any activity likely to damage an MSSI. They also outline the procedures to be undertaken if the site has a management scheme, the context for which is the duty in clause 3(1). In exercising its functions, a competent marine authority should take reasonable steps, consistent with the proper exercise of its functions, to further the conservation of the features for which the site has been notified, which is consistent with provisions relating to SSSIs on land. Amendment No. 54, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, does not add value to the clause's provisions, and I am grateful that he accepts that.
	Government amendment No. 32 ensures that, before deciding to undertake or give a consent to an operation which is likely to damage an MSSI, the competent marine authority informs the appropriate nature conservation body. When deciding whether an operation or a consent is likely to damage the features for which a site has been designated, we expect the competent marine authority to have regard to any list of potentially damaging operations which may be contained in the conservation statement for that site.
	The nature conservation body has 28 days in which to comment on the proposal. Any comments received from the appropriate nature conservation body within that period must be considered by the competent marine authority before it reaches its decision. The procedure is similar to that required for operations on SSSIs. In line with the other considerations to which a competent marine authority must have regard when taking decisions, the need for the operation or consent may outweigh pure nature conservation considerations. I repeat that that is the essence of sustainable development. The competent marine authority must inform the conservation agency how, if at all, it has taken account of its advice. That is an important protection; the authority cannot simply issue a statement that it has taken the advice into account, but must produce a much fuller statement on its treatment of that advice. Again, similar to the procedures for SSSIs, the operation should be carried out or authorised in such a manner as to give rise to as little damage as possible to the protected site.
	It is likely that a number of marine sites of special interest will be the subject of management schemes set up under clause 4. That is a subject in which my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon has taken a special interest. Amendments Nos. 33 to 35 provide for such schemes to be taken into account by competent marine authorities. Where management schemes are set up, competent marine authorities will be required to take reasonable steps to carry out their functions in accordance with the scheme.
	However, I do not accept that it would be necessary for every MSSI to have a management scheme. A management scheme should be established only if there is a need, and then pursued through agreement. Amendments Nos. 58 to 60 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, which would require every site to have a management scheme, go too far.
	The main purpose of management schemes is to co-ordinate the activities of those operating in the MSSI to ensure the conservation of the site. Within a scheme it will be possible to allow certain damaging activities to take place which do not affect the overall conservation of the site or detract from achieving the conservation objectives for the site. Obviously, that is a fine judgment to make. If those activities are in line with a management scheme, the competent marine authority will not be obliged to go through the procedures set out in amendment No. 32.
	Amendment No. 36 provides for the Secretary of State to exempt from the provisions of clause 3 activities carried out in the interests of national security. I do not expect this power to be widely used, but the clause is loosely based on similar provisions in the Environment Act 1995.
	Amendment No. 37 removes subsection (4) of clause 3. The Government consider that this provision is not necessary. Paragraph 20(1)(b) of schedule 6 to the Environmental Protection Act 1990 requires the nature conservation body to make a report on the exercise and performance of its functions every year, and there is nothing to suggest that that is confined to functions under that Act. We would therefore expect the appropriate conservation body, in any report made under that provision, to include details about how it has carried out its functions and duties in relation to the Bill, so that there will be regular reporting of functions carried out under the Bill.
	It might be convenient now for me to answer some of the points that have been raised. The hon. Member for Uxbridge asked me to confirm that English Nature and the Countryside Council for Wales will be expected to monitor MSSIs and to report on the implementation of the Bill. I have already answered that.
	The hon. Gentleman also asked me to confirm that English Nature and CCW will be provided with adequate resources to enable them to carry out the necessary monitoring and reporting. I have made it clear that we intend to provide appropriate resources for English Nature, and that it would consequently be expected to make changes to its corporate plan to ensure that the requirements under the Bill and the matters to which the hon. Gentleman referred can be properly carried through.
	The hon. Member for Uxbridge and the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) asked me to clarify what arrangements exist to request competent marine authorities to review existing consented activities to assess their compatibility with a marine site of special interest. The answer is that there is nothing in the Bill to prevent the appropriate nature conservation agency from reviewing existing consents—we would expect the agency to do so—and indicating a view on those activities to the relevant competent marine authority, which I would expect to take note of that advice and to make decisions accordingly.
	The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Mr. Simmonds) raised issues relating to sea fisheries committees. We had an earlier discussion on that matter, for which he was unable to be present, so perhaps he could refer to it in Hansard. His main concerns were funding and the adequacy of sea fisheries committees in achieving their desired role. Those are certainly important points, but I am afraid that they fall somewhat outside the Bill's parameters. However, I can say that no decisions will be taken on whether to address funding issues, or on the form of any review of sea fisheries committees, before the common fisheries policy review is complete.
	As the hon. Gentleman said, funding issues are currently a matter for local government, because sea fishery committees are local authority bodies wholly funded by levy on their constituent local councils—perhaps excluding certain EC grants for fisheries enforcement. This is a relevant issue to which he has rightly drawn attention, and I am sure that he will find other opportunities to pursue it. However, I cannot take it further in the context of the Bill.

Andrew Dismore: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3
	 — 
	Competent marine authorities: duties

Amendments made: No. 32, in page 3, line 27, leave out from beginning to end of line 36 and insert—
	'(2) This subsection applies to any operation—
	(a) which a competent marine authority proposes to undertake; or
	(b) to which a competent marine authority proposes to give its consent,
	if in the opinion of the competent marine authority the operation is likely to damage any of the flora, fauna or geological or physiographical features by reason of which a marine area is a marine site of special interest.
	(3) If subsection (2) applies, the competent marine authority must before deciding to undertake the operation or give consent to the operation give notice to the appropriate nature conservation body.
	(4) The competent marine authority must not decide to undertake the operation or give consent to it before whichever is the earliest of—
	(a) the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which notice is given under subsection (3); or
	(b) the receipt of representations from the appropriate nature conservation body.
	(5) In deciding whether to undertake the operation or give consent to it the competent marine authority must consider any representations made by the appropriate nature conservation body and must notify the appropriate nature conservation body of how (if at all) it has taken into account the representations.
	(6) To the extent that the competent marine authority does not take into account the representations of the appropriate nature conservation body it must, in undertaking or giving consent to the operation, do so in such a way as to give rise to as little damage as is reasonably practicable in all the circumstances to the flora, fauna or geological or physiographical features by reason of which the site is of special interest.
	(7) Subsection (2) does not apply to an operation which in the opinion of the competent marine authority is an emergency operation, but in that case the competent marine authority must within 7 days of undertaking or consenting to the emergency operation notify the appropriate nature conservation body of the operation.'.
	No. 33, in page 3, line 37, at beginning insert—
	'(8) A competent marine authority must'.
	No. 34, in page 3, line 38, leave out from "scheme" to end of line 41.
	No. 35, in page 3, line 42, at end insert—
	'(9) Subsection (2) does not apply to an operation the undertaking of which in the opinion of the competent marine authority concerned is in accordance with—
	(a) a management scheme established under section 4; or
	(b) a management scheme established under the Natural Habitats Regulations (management schemes for European marine sites).'.
	No. 36, in page 3, line 42, at end insert—
	'(10) Nothing in this section has effect in relation to the exercise of a function or the undertaking of an operation to the extent that the Secretary of State certifies that it is requisite or expedient in the interests of national security that it should not have effect in relation to the exercise of the function or the undertaking of the operation.'.
	No. 37, in page 4, line 1, leave out subsection (4).—[Mr. Meacher.]

Clause 4
	 — 
	Management schemes

Michael Meacher: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 4, line 7, leave out from beginning to "for" in line 8 and insert—
	'(1) Any one or more of the bodies mentioned in subsection (2) may establish a management scheme'.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 61, in page 4, line 7, leave out "may" and insert "shall".
	Government amendments Nos. 2 to 6.
	Amendment No. 62, in page 4, line 18, leave out "from time to time" and insert—
	'at least every five years'.
	Government amendments Nos. 7 to 12.
	Amendment No. 63, in page 4, line 21, at end insert—
	'and to those subject to notification under section 1(1)'.
	Government amendments Nos. 13 and 14.
	Amendment No. 64, in page 4, line 21, at end insert—
	'(6) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 1, no notification establishing a marine site of special interest shall take effect until a management scheme has been established.
	(7) In establishing a management scheme, the competent marine authority shall have due regard to—
	(a) any directions of the Secretary of State (as regards England) and the National Assembly for Wales (as regards Wales) issued under section 5;
	(b) the likely cost of establishing and maintaining the management scheme and the availability of sustainable funding to continue to meet that cost;
	(c) the views of the appropriate nature conservation body;
	(d) the views of those subject to notification under section 1(1); and
	(e) international best practice.'.
	Government amendments Nos. 15 to 17.
	Amendment No. 65, in clause 5, page 4, line 26, at end insert—
	', after due consultation with those subject to notification under section 1(1) and the appropriate nature conservation body'.
	Government amendment No. 18.
	Amendment No. 66, in page 4, line 27, after "Directions", insert—
	'shall comply with international best practice and'.
	Government amendments Nos. 19 to 25.

Michael Meacher: The establishment, where appropriate, of management schemes for MSSIs will set the framework in which activities will be managed, so as to secure a site's conservation objectives. The amendments are therefore important, and once again I recognise the important contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) in enabling us to reconsider several of these points.
	Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 outline which bodies may be involved in the creation of a management scheme. By way of background, I should point out that regulation 34 of the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994—known as the habitats regulations—allows for the creation of management schemes for European marine sites to fulfil our obligations under the EC directives on wild birds and on habitats. Having regard to the list of species and habitats included in those directives, such sites are of international importance. A statutory basis already exists, therefore, for management schemes for European marine sites, and through pilots for those sites we are already developing schemes on the ground. It would be appropriate therefore if the bodies able to make management schemes under the Bill were, as far as possible, the same as those bodies permitted to make schemes under the habitats regulations. The bodies listed in amendment No. 2 have been chosen explicitly to ensure that there is a large degree of consistency.
	Amendment No. 14 provides the power for the Secretary of State, in respect of England, and the National Assembly for Wales, in respect of Wales, to alter, if necessary, the list proposed by amendment No. 2 by means of statutory instrument. For England, that will be subject to the negative resolution procedure. The procedures for a statutory instrument as regards Wales require approval by the National Assembly for Wales in accordance with its Standing Orders.
	Any one or more of the prescribed bodies may establish a management scheme, but it is important that, as far as possible, all the organisations or people who carry out activities within an MSSI are consulted about its establishment. Amendment No. 4 will give those bodies an opportunity to engage fully in the consultation process that develops a management scheme, and ensure that their interests are taken into account. That is especially important for those competent marine authorities not directly involved in the setting up of management schemes, which nevertheless under clause 3(2)(b) will have to take reasonable steps to carry our their functions in accordance with such schemes.
	Amendment No. 3 will ensure that the bodies that make the scheme exercise their functions to secure the conservation objectives. That, coupled with the duty in clause 3 on all competent marine authorities to take reasonable steps to ensure that they exercise their functions in accordance with a management scheme, should ensure that the schemes make a positive contribution to the conservation of sites.
	There may be situations where an MSSI is notified within a marine area in which a European marine site has already been established or a European marine site is established which overlaps an existing MSSI. I referred to this matter earlier, and I shall say a little more about it now. New clause 4 will remove the possibility of an MSSI and a European marine site overlapping if they are designated for identical reasons.
	There are, however, likely to be occasions when an MSSI overlaps a European marine site but the MSSI has been notified to protect features different from those covered by the European site. In those cases MSSls and European sites may overlap. That may happen in cases where the criteria for notifying an MSSI identifies a nationally important species not listed in the directives within a European site designated for a different species or habitat. I am sorry that this is rather complex, but I hope that the sense of it is clear. It is important that the management of overlapping sites is co-ordinated with the minimum of additional bureaucracy, and the amendments are designed to achieve that.
	For that reason amendment No. 5 ensures that where an MSSI and a European site overlap, there cannot be more than one management scheme. Where a European site overlaps an MSSI either partially or fully, the management scheme for the European site can take into account the conservation objectives of the MSSI, as long as those are compatible with management of the features for which the European site was designated. If the European site has no management scheme, then a management scheme may still be made for the MSSI.
	Amendments Nos. 6 and 8 to 12 are intended to improve and clarify the text relating to when and how a management scheme should be amended and published. It is important that when a scheme is established, it is kept under review to ensure that it takes account of relevant activities that may affect the site. To ensure that the reviews are regular, amendment No. 7 requires that they are carried out at least once every five years.
	As currently drafted, the Bill makes no provision for identifying a date when a management scheme comes into force. That is important, because the activities of competent marine authorities in relation to an MSSI are affected by the establishment of a management scheme. Amendment No. 13 provides such a date by linking the establishment date to the publication of the scheme.
	There may be occasions when, for a number of reasons, a management scheme for an MSSI has not been developed. Clause 5 provides the opportunity for the Secretary of State, with regard to England, or the National Assembly for Wales for sites in Wales, to direct those bodies capable of establishing a management scheme to do so, if they feel that a management scheme is required.
	Amendment No. 15 clarifies that the direction to establish a management scheme can only be made if no scheme is in place for that MSSI. The amendment is necessary because, as outlined in clause 4, each MSSI can only have one management scheme. Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 bring the provisions of this clause closer into line with those in regulation 35 of the 1994 habitats regulations. The amendments give the confirming authority power to stipulate in a direction that the approval of the confirming authority needs to be obtained before a management scheme is made. The amendments ensure that the directing authority is also able to obtain such information as it requires concerning the establishment and operation of the scheme.
	Amendments Nos. 16 to 19 are textual amendments to clause 5 to ensure consistency in terminology between this clause and other clauses in the Bill. Amendments Nos. 22 to 24 provide similar changes to clause 5. Those changes will allow the confirming authority to make directions to amend management schemes that are already in existence. Experience suggests that plans prepared by local bodies and suited to local circumstances are more effective than those imposed from outside. However, there may be circumstances in which schemes that have been established do not, for one reason or another, function effectively. The direction to amend management schemes may be used if it becomes clear that local liaison, co-ordination or consultation has proved inadequate to achieve the site's conservation objectives. However, I want to stress that our preferred option is to allow those bodies that operate and know the site area to prepare and manage a scheme.
	I commend the Government amendments to the House. In the light of my detailed explanation, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon—to whose concerns we have given careful consideration—will not feel that it is necessary to press his amendment.

Paul Tyler: I apologise to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to the House, because I was not able to attend the early stages of this debate. I was dealing with a watery problem of a different nature as an amateur plumber's mate.
	I take this opportunity to congratulate the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) for presenting this important Bill to the House. I congratulate him particularly because I cannot imagine that he has a constituency interest in the matter. It can hardly be a parochial concern for him—far from it. However, I am delighted to be able to participate briefly in this debate, not only because of my constituency interest but because when I was elected again to the House in 1992 I chaired an all-party group on coastal concerns, and one of our anxieties related precisely to the subject of this Bill.
	These amendments are extremely important. If we do not have an effective management structure, I fear that the good will that has been invested in this Bill—on all sides, but particularly by the hon. Member for Uxbridge—may not be fulfilled. I want to emphasise to the Minister—should he need a reminder—that effective management will have cost implications, particularly in the early stages. That was referred to earlier in the context of the sea fisheries committees, but other official and voluntary bodies will clearly have difficulty in meeting their obligations under the Bill.
	I know that, in Committee and in this debate, the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) has laid great stress on the management process. We should be under no illusions that, particularly in the early days, local communities' views on the way in which the Bill has been rolled out will depend on sensitive management. That will apply whether to my fishing communities in North Cornwall, to the handliners that my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) mentioned or to the conservation bodies that have great expectations of the Bill.
	The sea fisheries committees are already under great strain—they are not alone—in terms of the resources made available to them. Surely the time has come to review the way in which they are able to fund their activities. At present, as we all know, the burden falls on local government and some local authorities already have great difficulty in coping with it. The teething problems that the Bill will inevitably create will be costly to deal with, so the Government should take the opportunity to review the way in which funding takes place.
	The Minister will recall that, when the then Select Committee on Agriculture reported on sea fishing, it recommended that
	"the funding arrangements for SFCs be re-examined in order to establish a secure, permanent, financial framework within which they can plan and perform their duties."
	These Government amendments will clearly lay a responsibility on a number of bodies, including the sea fisheries committees, and we must be concerned to ensure that those bodies are able to fulfil their responsibilities. We do not want them to let us all down and to leave Parliament in a difficult position because of the inadequacy of their financial arrangements.
	It is already the experience of the sea fisheries committees that a special area of conservation or a site of special scientific interest with a significant marine interest can cost about £10,000 to £20,000 to monitor and to manage responsibly. In those circumstances, we must be sure that the funding will be made available. The Minister referred to funding, and I would like to be sure that these Government amendments will not place new financial responsibilities and new financial penalties on bodies that are already hard-pressed.

Andrew Dismore: The nub of the disagreement between me and my right hon. Friend the Minister relates to amendment No. 60, which I tabled, and Government amendment No. 1. I do not understand how we can make the Bill effective without a management scheme for each of the areas selected. When the right hon Gentleman replies, perhaps he will cite examples of the areas that he thinks would not require a management scheme. That might help to put my mind at rest.
	Earlier, I gave examples of sites overseas where there were or were not management schemes. The marine park of Alonissos and northern Sporades has been a great success but, in the absence of a management scheme, all the local interests involved feel very vulnerable about their ability to continue to maintain the park effectively. Co-operation has enabled the park to work well, but it might be vulnerable to predators from outside who might come into the park to fish. At the other end of the scale, the Great Barrier reef has shown how a management scheme can work effectively. Although the Bill does not make provision for sites of that size, I hope that my right hon. Friend will tell us the sort of areas where a management scheme would be appropriate and those where it would not. If he does that, I will be able to withdraw my amendment.
	I am glad that we have taken on board the need to consult. Many of my amendments were geared towards creating the need to consult all those involved, and I do not intend to say any more about that. Perhaps great minds think alike, because I am pleased that my right hon. Friend has come up with the same formula for the review of the management scheme as I did. A period of five years is sensible in terms of allowing the marine site to settle down and of keeping matters under review.
	The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) asked about the costs involved, an issue that I raised when we debated the second group of amendments and which is mentioned in my amendment No. 64. In setting up management schemes it is important to identify where the funding will come from. As I said earlier, the marine park at Zakynthos is funded through a variety of sources, including local businesses, central and local government in Greece, and major conservation bodies, producing an effective funding partnership even without a management scheme. However, it is important to recognise that a cost is involved and to identify where the money will come from, whether from the Government or otherwise. I hope that when my right hon. Friend the Minister replies, he will give us some guidance on that.
	My other amendments refer primarily to remarks that I made earlier, which I shall not repeat, but they make valid points in terms of consultation and international best practice.

Michael Meacher: I am grateful for the short debate and, again, I shall try to respond briefly to the points that have been made.
	The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) raised two perfectly relevant and important issues, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) has just reiterated one of them. All Bills that will have a significant effect—this Bill will have an important effect in enabling a national system of marine sites of special interest to be established—require adequate resourcing, and we have fully taken account of that.
	As I said earlier, we shall increase resources to English Nature to take account of the Bill's requirements and we expect English Nature to make equivalent amendments to its corporate plan to ensure that it is properly resourced. We have examined the costs of monitoring and managing sites, but the full implications of that will only be certain in time. However, we have made what we believe to be adequate provision.
	As I said in the previous debate, the Government recognise that the adequacy of the role and, in particular, the funding of the sea fisheries committees is under review, and that a review of their funding will have to await the review of the common fisheries policy, but I would expect any funding review to consider the implications of their environmental duties.

Paul Tyler: Whenever a Minister refers to waiting for the review of the common fisheries policy, or, indeed, the common agricultural policy, my heart sinks, because that usually means many years of discussion, and there will be an intervening period when the sea fisheries committees will be under severe financial strain.

Michael Meacher: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but I can only repeat that the Government are extremely keen to see the review of the common fisheries policy undertaken and completed. Until that review is complete, it would not make sense to consider the funding of the sea fisheries committees. That is not because we hope that that review will drag on for years, so that we need make no provision with regard to the sea fisheries committees. There is a logic in this and, I repeat, it is the Government's view that we will have to wait for the completion of that review. The hon. Gentleman may want to pursue the matter with some of my colleagues who are more closely associated with it than me.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon asked in what instances a management scheme would not be needed. I agree that a management scheme would be a helpful tool in the vast majority of cases, and we will encourage the development of such schemes. However, there may be cases in which no operations are taking place but a scheme is necessary. I think that that must be assessed as sites are identified and notified, and as experience develops, including in relation to the pilot schemes that are now being undertaken in certain European marine sites.
	I am glad that my hon. Friend and I take the same view on the review period. All that I can say with regard to his final point—as I said, I do not think that management schemes are needed in every case—is that I would be reluctant to include provisions that prevented the notification of sites and the recognition and protection that it provides before a management scheme has been established. Such an arrangement would be the wrong way round, so I hope that he will not press the matter.
	With those assurances, I hope that the House will accept the amendment.
	Amendment agreed to.
	Amendments made: No. 2, in page 4, line 9, leave out from "interest" to end of line 11 and insert—
	'(2) The bodies are—
	(a) an appropriate nature conservation body;
	(b) the Environment Agency;
	(c) in England, a county, district or London borough council, or the Common Council of the City of London;
	(d) in Wales, a county council or county borough council;
	(e) any water undertaker or sewerage undertaker;
	(f) any navigation authority, within the meaning of section 221(1) of the Water Resources Act 1991 (c. 57);
	(g) any harbour authority within the meaning of section 57 of the Harbours Act 1964 (c. 40);
	(h) the general lighthouse authority, or a local lighthouse authority, within the meaning of section 193 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 (c. 21);
	(i) any local fisheries committee provided for under section 1 of the Sea Fisheries Regulation Act 1966 (c. 38).'.
	No. 3, in page 4, line 11, at end insert—
	'(3) A management scheme must set out how the functions of the body or bodies making the scheme (including, in the case of an appropriate nature conservation body, the function of making byelaws with respect to the site) are to be exercised so as to secure the achievement of the conservation objectives.'.
	No. 4, in page 4, line 13, at end insert—
	'(5) Before making a management scheme under subsection (1), the body or bodies making it must consult—
	(a) the confirming authority;
	(b) so far as reasonably practicable, each competent marine authority which exercises functions in relation to the site;
	(c) any other competent marine authority which in the opinion of the body or bodies should be consulted;
	(d) any other person who in the opinion of the body or bodies is likely to be affected by the management scheme.'.
	No. 5, in page 4, line 14, leave out from beginning to end of line 16 and insert—
	'(6) If any part of a marine site of special interest falls within a European marine site and a management scheme is established for the European marine site under the Natural Habitats Regulations—
	(a) no management scheme may be established under this section for the marine site of special interest; and
	(b) a management scheme which is already established under this section ceases to have effect.
	(7) A management scheme established for a European marine site may take into account the conservation objectives for a marine site of special interest, but only to the extent that securing those objectives is compatible with securing compliance with the Habitats Directive as required by the Natural Habitats Regulations.'.
	No. 6, in page 4, line 17, leave out—
	'relating to a marine site of special interest shall'
	and insert "is to".
	No. 7, in page 4, line 18, leave out "if necessary amended" and insert—
	'at least once in every five years.'.
	No. 8, in page 4, line 18, at end insert—
	'(9) A management scheme may be amended at any time.'.
	No. 9, in page 4, line 19, at beginning insert—
	'Unless an appropriate nature conservation body is the body, or one of the bodies, which establishes a management scheme,'.
	No. 10, in page 4, line 19, leave out "management".
	No. 11, in page 4, line 20, leave out "shall" and insert "must".
	No. 12, in page 4, line 20, leave out—
	'relevant marine authority or authorities'
	and insert "body or bodies".
	No. 13, in page 4, line 21, at end insert—
	'(10) The appropriate nature conservation body must publish a management scheme—
	(a) established or amended by it under this section; or
	(b) a copy of which is sent to it as established or amended under this section.
	(11) A management scheme has effect, or has effect as amended, from the date on which it is first published under subsection (10).'.
	No. 14, in page 4, line 21, at end insert—
	'(12) The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument amend subsection (2) in relation to marine sites of special interest which are the subject of a notification by English Nature.
	(13) The National Assembly for Wales may by order made by statutory instrument amend subsection (2) in relation to marine sites of special interest which are the subject of a notification by the Countryside Council for Wales.
	(14) A statutory instrument containing an order under subsection (12) is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.—[Mr. Meacher.]

Clause 5
	 — 
	Directions in relation to management scheme

Amendments made: No. 15, in page 4, line 23, leave out from beginning to "may" in line 24 and insert—
	'(1) If no management scheme has been established for a marine site of special interest, the confirming authority'.
	No. 16, in page 4, line 24, leave out—
	'the relevant marine authorities, or any of them,'
	and insert—
	'any one or more of the bodies mentioned in section 4(2)'.
	No. 17, in page 4, line 26, leave out—
	'for a marine site of special interest'.
	No. 18, in page 4, line 27, after "Directions", insert "under subsection (1)".
	No. 19, in page 4, line 30, leave out "relevant marine authorities" and insert—
	'bodies to which the direction is given'.
	No. 20, in page 4, line 32, at end insert—
	';
	( ) provide that the approval of the confirming authority is required before the scheme is established.'.
	No. 21, in page 4, line 32, at end insert—
	';
	( ) require the body or bodies to which the direction is given to supply to the confirming authority such information concerning the establishment or operation of the scheme as may be specified in the direction.'.
	No. 22, in page 4, line 33, leave out from beginning to "may" in line 34 and insert "The confirming authority".
	No. 23, in page 4, line 34, leave out—
	'relevant marine authorities, or any of them,'
	and insert—
	'body or bodies which established a management scheme'.
	No. 24, in page 4, line 35, leave out—
	'a management scheme for a marine site of special interest'
	and insert "the scheme".
	No. 25, in page 4, line 37, leave out "shall" and insert "must".—[Mr. Meacher.]

Clause 6
	 — 
	Byelaws for protection of marine sites of special interest

Amendments made: No. 26, in page 5, line 2, after "may", insert—
	', with the consent of the confirming authority,'.
	No. 27, in page 5, line 3, leave out "under" and insert—
	'(2) Subsections (2) to (4), and (10) and (11) of'.
	No. 28, in page 5, line 4, after "reserves)", insert—
	'have effect in relation to byelaws made under this section as respects a marine site of special interest as they have effect in relation to byelaws made under that section as respects a marine nature reserve.'.
	No. 29, in page 5, line 5, leave out from beginning to end of line 7 and insert—
	'(3) Sections 236 to 238 of the Local Government Act 1972 (c. 70) (which relate to the procedure for making byelaws, authorise byelaws to impose fines and provide for the proof of byelaws in legal proceedings) have effect in relation to byelaws made under this section as if the appropriate nature conservation body were a local authority within the meaning of that Act.
	(4) In relation to byelaws made under this section, those sections apply subject to any modifications made by the confirming authority by regulations made by statutory instrument (including modifications increasing the maximum fines which the byelaws may impose).
	(5) A statutory instrument containing regulations made by the Secretary of State under subsection (4) is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
	(6) The confirming authority may, after consultation with the appropriate nature conservation body, direct the body—
	(a) to revoke any byelaws previously made under this section; or
	(b) to make such amendments of byelaws so made as may be specified in the direction.
	(7) The appropriate nature conservation body has power to enforce byelaws made under this section.
	(8) Except with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions, proceedings for an offence under byelaws made under this section may not be taken other than by the appropriate nature conservation body.'.—[Mr. Meacher.]

Clause 7
	 — 
	Interpretation

Amendment made: No. 38, in page 5, line 12, leave out Clause 7.—[Mr. Meacher.]
	Order for Third Reading read:—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, and Prince of Wales's Consent, on behalf of the Duchy of Cornwall, signified.]
	Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

John Randall: I am delighted that this morning's proceedings have been taken in the same good spirit from all parts of the House that has characterised all stages of the Bill's passage. I am also pleased that Third Reading will, it is to be hoped, be short enough to allow hon. Members to consider on Second Reading another very important Bill, which I hope hon. Members in all parts of the House will again support.
	I want to acknowledge in this debate the excellent support for the Bill that has come from so many individuals and organisations. I made special mention of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds on Second Reading, and I should like to pay tribute once again to its hard work and ongoing support of my Bill. In particular, I want to mention Duncan Huggett, Ben Stafford and Sharon Thompson. As you will appreciate, Madam Deputy Speaker, my duties in the House mean that I do not always concentrate full-time on the Bill. Sometimes I have to do my job in following the Government rather like a great skua harrying a flock of terns. I hope to resume that role quite soon.
	I should like also to express my thanks for the hard work of the wider environmental NGO movement, especially through the wildlife and countryside links and the wildlife trusts. It would not be right for me not to thank all those many members of environmental organisations and of the public who have lent their support to the Bill. I know that many colleagues will bear testimony to the extent of that support, as they have expressed to me their delight at receiving so many letters on the subject—of course, that is because it gives them more work to do. I have to admit that that is the result of the hard work of the NGOs, not my personal chivvying of people in their constituencies.
	I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mrs. Clark) for her hard work. As she said, there is a genuine and deep desire to protect our marine environment. An early-day motion on the Bill was signed by 114 Members. Although I am not a great fan of early-day motions, that support shows that the views of the electorate are mirrored by hon. Members.
	I am delighted to have met representatives of what could be described as the marine industries, including fisheries, ports, shipping, offshore oil and gas, and wind energy as well as those with leisure interests in the marine environment. Our discussions have been, in the popular parlance, frank and open, and I hope that most of their outstanding concerns have been tackled.
	I repeatedly said in those meetings that, as someone who comes from business, I am the last person to propose regulation for its own sake. However, it is right to take new measures if they are required to protect nationally important wildlife. I thank the Minister and the Department for their hard work on the measure. Although it is not technically a hybrid Bill, it is getting less private by the minute.
	On Second Reading, there were rumours that the Bill was being holed below the water line. Again, I pay tribute to the Minister and the Department for their excellent salvage job, and I thank senior members of all parties. As a member of the Opposition Whips Office, I pay tribute to the Government Whips Office, and especially to the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty). I am pleased that he is not in his place, otherwise he would be deeply embarrassed. [Interruption.] I do not readily praise Harrow, East, but I am happy to do that on this occasion.
	I welcome the fact that most of my aims remain in the Bill despite some amendments. The Bill will allow the notification of marine sites of special interest throughout the territorial waters of England and Wales and give clear conservation objectives and guidance on what management is required. The strong duty on all "competent marine authorities" to further conservation of MSSIs remains, and English Nature and the Countryside Council for Wales can exercise new byelaw-making powers when no other authority has the necessary management powers. Those are only some of the fundamental points that continue to underpin the Bill.
	I congratulate the Government on tabling amendments to strengthen the measure. For example, they have provided for a new offence of intentional reckless damage to or destruction of MSSIs. As has been said, the fly in the ointment is the weakening of the provision through a defence of incidental damage. We have discussed that and we may return to the matter if the Bill passes to the other place.
	I welcome the clarification that the Crown is considered a competent marine authority, and the requirement on such authorities, when setting aside the advice of English Nature or the CCW, to carry out or allow others to carry out operations in a way that causes as little damage as possible.
	It would be naive to suggest that the Bill has not occasionally had to weather choppy waters. At the outset, I should perhaps have preferred not to make some of the compromises that were agreed to keep it afloat. As we have mentioned them in our discussions today, I shall not dwell on them any longer.
	I continue to have reservations about the Government's decision to reduce to a power the duty on English Nature and the CCW to notify MSSIs. I believe that it will make marine sites less likely to receive the protection and management that they deserve. I am also worried about the intentions behind the duty to "have regard" to the desirability of contributing to achieving sustainable development. That may seem like motherhood and apple pie, but I fear it may mean that other interests continue to ride roughshod over nature conservation. However, we must wait and see.
	The procedures for reviewing the compatibility of existing activities with the conservation objectives of MSSIs are unclear. What happens if English Nature or the Countryside Council for Wales requests that an activity be reviewed, but the competent marine authority chooses to do nothing about it? Can the activity be judicially reviewed, as originally intended in the Bill?
	Despite the fact that the Bill originally contained a requirement to have notifications confirmed by the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales, I fear that the addition of a sustainable development requirement may mean that sites are never confirmed because complete agreement about a designation will never be achieved, although I received a great deal of assurance on that matter on Report.
	I am sure that the marine environment will be debated further in another place and may be the subject of future legislation. I understand that, if the Bill succeeds, it will be only the first step on a long road—the first tentative dip of a toe in the water. However, I would not want to end my speech on a sour note, given the good spirit not only of today's debate but of the discussions that we have had throughout the Bill's passage through the House, and given the hard work that has been put in on all sides. I thank the Minister and his Department again.
	I think that this is a good Bill. It has moved the marine environment up the political agenda, where it is just beginning to reflect the importance that it should have. I hope that the Bill will continue to enjoy broad and generous support and I look forward to watching deliberations on it in another place if we achieve Third Reading today.

Paul Tyler: May I be the first to congratulate the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) on steering this boat to what I hope proves to be a safe harbour? I hope that it has a successful journey to the other place and beyond. I had never heard a tribute to the usual channels in this Chamber before and I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on breaking with precedent. I cannot think of a suitable marine or nautical equivalent to congratulate the usual channels.
	Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I have a strong constituency interest in the success of this legislation, particularly in achieving unanimous support at a community level. My constituency has one of the longest coastlines in the United Kingdom and a great number of communities that depend on the sea in some way.
	The hon. Gentleman rightly said that the Bill is ground breaking. To an extent, it is also a shot in the dark, because it moves into new territory. In those circumstances, there will be sensitivities. Clearly, the ecological balance is extremely sensitive, but so too is the economic balance of many of the coastal communities that I and many other hon. Members represent. It is extremely important that we take people with us in this process. Teething problems are inevitable because there are potential conflicts, as has been evident from the Committee proceedings and even this morning. It is important that sensitivity at the local level matches sensitivity to those potential conflicts, not least between the fishing community and the different types of fishing. The less intrusive fishing methods to which my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) referred will be especially sensitive to potential problems. That sensitivity is not exclusive to them, but it will be important. Similarly, some of the smaller ports will be anxious about the problems that may arise.
	The successful settlement of those problems can be achieved only with appropriate resources—we have had exchanges on that matter already today—and with local commitment. I hope that as soon as the Bill receives Royal Assent, there will be careful consultation with local authority bodies and others on whom we shall rely greatly for the Bill's successful implementation. With good will, I am sure that the legislation will play an important role in maintaining the marine environment around the shores of this country.
	The Minister said earlier that Her Majesty the Queen and the Prince of Wales had given their assent. I think that that is the right expression; I have never been good at parliamentary expressions, which sometimes seem anachronistic. I suspect that the Prince of Wales is also giving consent in his capacity as Duke of Cornwall which, as we all know, is a much older title than either Prince of Wales or heir to the throne. In that context, I emphasise that many parts of Cornwall would benefit greatly from the measure. As a Cornish MP, I congratulate the hon. Member for Uxbridge and thank him for the persistent hard work that will, I hope, lead to the successful conclusion of the Bill's proceedings.

Andrew Dismore: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) on steering his Bill this far. His Third Reading speech was somewhat disparaging, but he has nothing to be ashamed of and much of which to be proud. When I was preparing for today's debate, I looked at the notes for my Second Reading speech. The hon. Gentleman was perhaps lucky not to have had the benefit—or otherwise—of that speech as it had a lot to say about the Bill, as he might have expected. I am pleased that I have rather less to say today, as the Bill has been improved.
	Few Members manage to take a private Member's Bill this far, so the hon. Gentleman should also be proud of that. I hope to be able to repeat that trick in two or three weeks—perhaps with the assistance of the usual channels on his side.

David Wilshire: That might be arranged.

Andrew Dismore: Obviously, the hon. Member for Uxbridge has the thanks of all the people involved in the environmental world, and I echo their gratitude. However, he would also be thanked by many who cannot speak for themselves—the dolphins and seals which will live to a ripe old age and the other marine wildlife which will benefit from what he has achieved on their behalf.
	While we are talking about people who cannot speak for themselves, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks to my parliamentary neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas), who has also done a good job in helping to pilot the Bill. As the hon. Gentleman might know, I have had several discussions with my hon. Friend about the Bill and I am glad that the House has reached a consensus about taking it forward.

Desmond Swayne: I briefly add my tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall). The measure is a not insignificant step in addressing a large gap in our environmental policy—so much biodiversity is threatened in the maritime environment. It is an enormous task to bring the protection of the maritime environment up to the standards for which we have been working in respect of the land.
	My hon. Friend has carried out a tremendous task. He has been ably assisted by the hard work of the Minister for the Environment and his officials in improving the Bill. It is a good Bill and we wish it every success.

Tony Cunningham: I, too, add my congratulations. Normally, I go home on Thursdays but I attended today's debates because of the sheer volume of letters from my constituents asking me to support the Bill.
	I offer the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) my congratulations and those of my constituents.

Michael Meacher: The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) must be feeling weighed down with congratulations, but I am only too glad to echo what other Members have said. The hon. Gentleman has steered the Bill positively and constructively through choppy waters. Given my classical upbringing, the analogy that came to mind was that of Scylla and Charybdis. Several times, I thought that the measure might hit one or the other—or even both at once. The hon. Gentleman has done extremely well. The Bill is very worth while.
	The House spends far too much time on confrontational activity, although we broadly agree on many issues. It is refreshing that we have achieved consensus on a matter of considerable importance to us all. The hon. Gentleman can take credit for engendering that spirit.
	The measure has also shown us a new and significant role for private Members' Bills. Although they are often enacted, they are sometimes confined to a relatively small role. I would never describe their role as insignificant, but it could be more important. This is unquestionably an important Bill. I consider that private Members' Bills should have a wider coverage and role—as long as the Government are able to ensure that their policy prevails in the end, of course. I believe that that is well understood. I shall be brief because other Bills follow, which are also of considerable importance.
	The Bill is important for three reasons. First, we have protected land-based SSSIs pretty effectively with the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 but marine sites have much less protection, and yet a high proportion of Britain's biodiversity is in the seas around us.
	Secondly, the marine environment is an important part of promoting the policy of sustainable development. It is a very difficult policy. Everyone will pay lip service to it but its effective and balanced application is a work of art. Reconciling development and conservation under the Bill will not be easy. The hon. Member for Uxbridge said delicately that compromises had been made that he would have preferred not to have been made, and he spoke about other interests riding roughshod over conservation. I really do not believe that that will happen. Mechanisms have been put in place to ensure a balance.
	The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) is right to say that we must take people with us. We want a broad consensus, not only in the House but "out there", that our fishing communities should be able to thrive but that marine biodiversity in our marine sites should be preserved wherever possible.
	Thirdly, the Bill is important because, although we have European Union protection of international sites—European marine sites—there has been a gap in the legislation in terms of national sites of marine importance. The Bill plugs that gap. As legislative slots are not easy to obtain, I am very grateful, speaking for the Government, that we have had the opportunity to take the first step in our major review of marine conservation, and to channel it through the Bill. Next week I shall travel to Bergen to discuss with the Scandinavian and other Ospar countries the issue of marine conservation in the north-east Atlantic; these matters must be pursued internationally and nationally.
	For all those reasons, the Bill is very important. I congratulate the hon. Member for Uxbridge once again. I thank all those who have collaborated on the Bill and I strongly commend it to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Copyright (Visually Impaired Persons) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Rachel Squire: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	I begin by declaring the assistance that I have received from the Royal National Institute for the Blind. Its help and expertise has been magnificent and I pay a particular tribute to Caroline Ellis, David Mann, Marilyn Oldershaw and the team that has supported them. I also pay tribute to the many hon. Members from all parties in the House who have been eager to give their full support to the Bill.
	May I give particular recognition to the partnership that has ensured that the Bill has been given the time today for its Second Reading? I add further to their embarrassment by giving special recognition to, dare I say it, the two musketeers: the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) and my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), who I know have been very keen to give the Bill their support. I thank those who have expressed their support in the other place. I also thank the Government, especially the Under–Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for her support.
	Many organisations and bodies outside the House support the Bill. They include the Disability Rights Commission, the Library Association, the National Library for the Blind, the Calibre Cassette Library, the Scottish Braille Press, the Talking Newspaper Association of the United Kingdom, the Torch Trust for the Blind, the UK Association of Braille Producers, the Confederation of Transcribed Information Services, the National Federation of the Blind, the National League of the Blind and Disabled, Scope, Sense, and Deafblind UK.
	A considerable number of authors have expressed their support, including Philip Pullman, Jilly Cooper, Joanna Trollope, Harold Pinter and Nick Hornby.
	The purpose of the Bill is to remove the barriers created by copyright law to visually impaired people's access to books and other reading materials, while safeguarding the rights of authors and publishers. In so doing, it will greatly enhance not just visually impaired people's access to our written culture, but, crucially, the educational and employment opportunities open to such a hugely disadvantaged group.
	Copyright is, in itself, a valid and valuable concept. Writers and other creators are entitled to have their work recognised and respected and to earn a fair return for their intellectual and artistic endeavours. However, visually impaired people face unacceptable delays in gaining access to books and articles in accessible formats or are denied the right to read certain books altogether because of current copyright law.
	Visually impaired people cannot simply walk into their nearest bookshop and choose a book in large print or braille. With the exception of a few commercial publishers of large-print and audio books, most publishers find it uneconomic to make accessible copies of works available to visually impaired people. Research commissioned in 1999 revealed that only 5 per cent. of the 100,000-plus titles published in the United Kingdom in 1998 were available in formats accessible to the 2 million visually impaired people a year later. That shows the extent of the limited choice of reading material available.
	The majority of accessible copies are produced by voluntary organisations or teachers of visually impaired students, yet the ability of schools and voluntary organisations to make books, magazines and other materials accessible and readily available to visually impaired people is massively constrained by current copyright restrictions.
	Every time the explicit permission of the rights-holder is required, it is usually granted, but, typically, there are significant delays and, occasionally, outright refusals. At best it takes a month for permission to come through, but the wait is often much longer. Frequently, six months pass before it is possible to produce an alternative-format version. Sometimes, the wait is as long as two years. When permission is delayed, visually impaired people are unable to participate in our society on the same terms as sighted people. Voluntary organisations find that they waste precious time and money chasing publishers and authors' agents for permission—time and resources that they would prefer to devote to producing more material in accessible formats.
	There is compelling evidence of the disadvantage caused by copyright barriers to blind and partially sighted learners in particular. The largest ever survey of blind and partially sighted young people, the results of which were published last year, revealed that nearly half—47 per cent.—of students in university or higher education do not usually get books in their preferred formats and that 33 per cent. of visually impaired children do not always get their textbooks in an accessible format when they need them.
	Let me give two examples of the problem. The first is of a visually impaired student who asked her university library to enlarge on a photocopier a book that she needed for her studies. It told her that it could copy only one chapter and that she should be grateful for that. How will that student get through her reading list and complete her studies when the copyright law makes it so difficult for her to gain access to books? Will she, sadly, become one of those students who give up their studies as a result? The second example relates to the recent attempts by the RNIB to persuade the agents of two very famous children's authors to give it permission to transcribe their works, which would enrich the lives of visually impaired children. Permission was refused point blank. Is such a denial of access justified simply because children are visually impaired?
	There have been positive developments in voluntary agreements between right-holders and visual impairment organisations, but that does not negate the need for legislation. On the contrary, at the present rate of progress, the RNIB contends that it will take 20 years to get most works covered by such schemes—and many copyright owners will still not join.
	I welcomed the launch last October of the joint industry guidelines on copyright and visually impaired people which stated that it would usually be acceptable for a visually impaired person to make a single copy of a work for personal use, subject to various conditions, without seeking permission. However, publishers reserve the right to opt out, and I understand that many schools and libraries remain wary of transcribing works into accessible formats because the guidelines do not have the force of law.
	The advent of the information society has rendered the copyright problem more acute than ever. It could offer tremendous advantages to visually impaired people. However, the development of digital rights management schemes has added a new technological barrier to the copyright equation. Most of those schemes are incompatible with the screen-reading technology that blind and partially sighted people use to gain access to material displayed on a computer screen.
	Let me deal briefly with how the Bill proposes to address the barriers thrown up by copyright law. It would amend the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 to create two exceptions in copyright law for the benefit of visually impaired people. Clause 1 provides for single accessible copies to be made for work purposes for the personal use of a visually impaired person without infringement of copyright, subject to a few conditions including that the work must be lawfully obtained, that there is significant acknowledgement of the author, and that the work must not already be published in a form that the person concerned can access. There would be no need to ask the rights-holder for permission in such circumstances.
	The clause also makes provision for multiple-access copies to be made for and distributed to visually impaired people without asking permission, but with numerous safeguards for the moral rights of the author and without interfering with the legitimate exploitation of the work. Only educational establishments or bodies that operate on a not-for-profit basis could rely on that exception, and they would have to notify the copyright owner within a reasonable time that they had made accessible copies of the work.
	In the unlikely event of serious infringements of copyright arising from the activities of bodies under the exception, the Secretary of State would have the power in extremis to prohibit the body or bodies involved from acting under the exception. The exception also provides for circumstances in which a large number of copies in an alternative format might be needed: for example, if a novel has to be studied as part of a school subject and children in many schools therefore need the same material to be made accessible, or if an organisation such as the RNIB is building up stock for its renowned talking books service.
	Clause 1 also defines the meaning of an accessible copy and the group to whom the exceptions apply. The accessible copy is one that offers a visually impaired person access to the work equivalent to that of a person who is not visually impaired. It will include formats such as braille, large print, audio cassette or disk.
	Visually impaired people access information in a variety of ways. Among other factors, the age of onset of disability, the amount of rehabilitation received and the facilities at the individual's disposal influence the way in which people are able to read. The Bill's definition of visually impaired persons embraces not only those who are blind or partially sighted, or have uncorrectable sight loss, but anyone who has a physical disability that means that they cannot pick up or manipulate a book, such as those with rheumatoid arthritis. That is the definition used by the publishing industry in the context of copyright issues.
	Clause 2 specifies that the legislation will apply throughout the UK, given that copyright is a reserved matter. The exceptions cover literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works as defined in the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act. However, given that the owners of copyright in music are highly dependent on royalties for the making of sound recordings of the music, and that a visually impaired person can enjoy such a sound recording without any reformatting, the Bill specifically excludes the making of an accessible copy of a musical work that involves recording a performance.
	The Bill's provisions are heavily influenced by the original Patent Office consultation. They are also the result of lengthy dialogue and consultation with organisations representing visually impaired people and rights-holder organisations. Toward the end of last year I was pleased to meet representatives of the Publishers Licensing Society, the Authors Licensing and Collecting Society, the Publishers Association and the Writers Guild of Great Britain. I am grateful to them for their helpful suggestions, which have influenced the drafting of the Bill.
	Throughout my life, I have been fortunate enough to meet and have contact with both children and adults with visual impairment. They stand out from the crowd not because of their disability, but because of their abilities and achievements in overcoming the many obstacles that they face. I hope that the House will support the Bill today and give visually impaired people opportunities to fulfil their potential—to read, to learn, to work and to participate fully in our society.

Nigel Waterson: I congratulate the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Rachel Squire) on doing well in the ballot. I know from my own experience that a Member who comes high in the private Members' ballot is never lonely. We are besieged by good causes that wish a Member to take up their banner. There are difficult choices to make, but if I may say so, the hon. Lady has made a good choice in bringing the Bill forward.
	I am aware of the immense amount of work that is involved in bringing a private Member's Bill together and trying to carry Members of all parts of the House in roughly the same direction at roughly the same speed.
	The Bill has the support of the official Opposition. Until the Royal National Institute for the Blind began to lobby Members about the problem, I was unaware of the technical, legal problems that were being caused to many blind and partially sighted people. I join the hon. Lady in congratulating the team that has been involved in the excellent work that has been done at the RNIB in putting everything together, in considering the realities and the safeguards that are needed, and on its most effective lobbying of all hon. Members in setting out the merits of the proposed legislation.
	As always, there are points of detail on which some of us may have differing views, but that is why there is consideration in Committee. Such points are not for today's debate. This is a good Bill and a necessary Bill. It seeks to address a clear case of discrimination against blind and partially sighted people. It would be a travesty if it did not receive Second Reading today.
	As the hon. Lady has so eloquently described, the problem is in the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, which wholly overlooks the needs of visually impaired people. As she has told the House, a survey carried out a couple of years ago revealed that only 5 per cent. of titles—I gather that about 100,000 are published every year in the United Kingdom—were available in formats that were accessible to people with visual impairment within a year of their publication. That is a damning statistic.
	Another statistic is that nearly half—47 per cent.—of blind and partially-sighted students in universities and higher education do not usually obtain books in their preferred formats. We all know that it is difficult enough studying a course at university in the first place, without having additional difficulty because one suffers from visual impairment.
	As the RNIB pointed out to me, there are about 3,000 or more voters in my constituency who are shut off from accessible reading material because of the copyright restrictions that the Bill is aimed to deal with. I am sure that the matter has been drawn to the attention of other right hon. and hon. Members.
	We have heard from both the RNIB and the hon. Lady about blind and partially sighted learners having to give up in despair. They throw up their hands and walk away from courses because they cannot secure access to relevant study materials in a format that is accessible to them.
	In a sense, the irony is that the various formats are invariably produced—not on a profit-making basis—by voluntary and charitable organisations. They have limited resources but they are extremely successful in producing the formats that are required.
	It is right to emphasise, as the hon. Lady has done, that no one is setting out to threaten copyright and the legitimate interests of authors, publishers and distributors. I am pleased that only just up the road from my constituency is the national recording centre of the Talking Newspaper Association, which is at Heathfield. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Mr. Hendry), who has given me some details from the centre. It does a tremendous job, both locally and nationally. It transcribes on to tape the contents of 1,100 of the 1,400 regional and local newspapers that are produced. That is an amazing achievement in itself. It runs also a national service that records more than 200 newspapers and magazines on to cassettes and transcribes about 75 titles into electronic format.
	In a sense, it is a sort of sister organisation to talking books, and every bit as important for blind and partially sighted people. I can certainly say that from meeting them in my constituency. Talking to members of the Eastbourne Blind Society, I am always struck by how reliant they are on both talking books and talking newspapers. Their products are "read" by 230,000—nearly 0.25 million—blind and partially sighted people in the country. It is not just current affairs that they read, although hopefully they will all read avidly the reports of our debate that will no doubt appear in the national media. People with particular hobbies or interests can access specialist magazines through the service; people can also examine classified ads and pursue job opportunities of which they may otherwise be unaware.
	The Talking Newspaper Association of the United Kingdom makes a fair point about the fact that it gets no Government funding; it is a voluntary and charitable organisation. It says that it can only operate effectively with the co-operation of local and national newspapers, and is in the happy position of having agreements with all the local newspaper editors and publishers, as well as national titles. However, it says that there have been a couple of occasions when reservations have been expressed about the provision of the state-of-the-art electronic service. It says that
	"earlier this year, one publisher did suspend the provision of source material necessitating the temporary suspension of a number of titles."
	The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West is trying to tackle that problem, which is more widespread in other areas, in her Bill. The Talking Newspaper Association puts it graphically:
	"Were the Government to propose, for example, that all Jews and gays needed to obtain a licence in order to access books and information, there would—rightly so—be an outcry."
	I do not think that that analogy is over the top. Unbeknown to many people, nearly 0.25 million of our fellow citizens are effectively discriminated against, as I have described. I therefore commend the work of the Talking Newspaper Association.
	I shall say only a brief word about safeguards, as it is more appropriate to discuss them in Committee. The hon. Lady recognised that it is important to protect intellectual property of all types. The UK leads the world in many respects in intellectual property, and the Opposition support attempts to strengthen copyright and patent protection. The Bill addresses the problem of providing such protection; I shall not go into too much detail, but the one-for-one exception in clause 1 makes it clear that a conventional copy of a publication has to be obtained in parallel with the production of a version accessible to blind or partially sighted people. There are also detailed safeguards on multiple accessible copies for educational establishments with a legitimate interest in producing formats for visually impaired students; those establishments are not in the business of making a profit or trying to skim off profits from the publishers or authors.
	I am pleased that the Bill includes other safeguards. Had they not been included, we would have pressed for them. There may be scope for debate about their extent and whether they go too far but, again, that is a matter for Committee. We have heard stories from the RNIB and the hon. Lady about students who simply cannot obtain a complete book; they may be wrestling with a weekly reading list, but cannot get more than one chapter of a book at a time, which must be an extraordinary disincentive to pursuing a course in any subject. We have also heard about an advisory teacher for visually impaired children who simply could not get enough books in the right format to teach the children properly, which must be against the spirit of the original copyright legislation that the Bill seeks to amend.
	In conclusion, I reiterate our support for the Bill; we look forward to it reaching its next stage. Blind and partially sighted people have enough obstacles to overcome in life; let us at least remove this one.

Eric Forth: I congratulate the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Rachel Squire) on introducing what I consider to be a model private Member's Bill. It is focused on a particular problem; it is relatively and properly limited in scope; it is, we now know, uncontroversial; and it implies effectively no additional burden on public expenditure. Those are all admirable qualities in a private Member's Bill. The fact that the Bill seeks to correct something which is so patently wrong and does that in a businesslike way is an additional virtue.
	I also welcome the fact that we have today had a brief but important opportunity to debate the Bill. That is of the essence of the parliamentary process, as it allows hon. Members and the House to indicate the extent of support—or, in some cases, the extent of opposition—to a Bill. The hon. Lady generously acknowledged that she had been assisted by hon. Members in all parts of the House. We now have the opportunity to debate the Bill, indicate our support for it and perhaps flag up one or two specifics, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) has just done, which may need attention in Committee. Again, that is admirable.
	I confess that I am generally rather uneasy about legislation. In my previous incarnation, I made a modest career out of trying to protect the public at large from what I saw as unnecessary or even disadvantageous legislation, but in a case such as this, I believe that legislation is entirely justified, particularly where it seeks to assist any group in society whose members are disadvantaged through no fault of their own. That is an aim to which the House should pay more attention and on which it should spend more time than it does.
	The hon. Lady's speech reflected the fact that in cases such as this, there is nearly always a balance to be struck between the advantage properly being sought, and any risk of disadvantage to any other group that may have a legitimate claim. I acknowledge that the Bill seeks carefully to do that. As far as I know, none of the legitimate interest groups that could be affected has argued that the Bill should not proceed. The Committee stage will give an opportunity for such reservations to be made clear, if there are any. That is not necessarily a topic for Second Reading, but the Committee will be able to deal with it.
	May I register one or two slight reservations, and perhaps put down a marker for the Committee? I am always nervous when I see a reference to the powers of the Secretary of State, such as that in clause 1, with its rather odd format, under section 31B(12) on page 4, which seeks to give the Secretary of State powers by order to prohibit or to disapply. It goes on to state that any body would therefore not be entitled to a licence, and continues:
	"The Secretary of State shall only exercise the powers . . . if he is satisfied".
	I am not totally reassured by that, as I see nowhere in the Bill any provision for appeal.
	Unless I am misreading the Bill, it strikes me that all the powers go in only one direction—that is, that the Secretary of State can prohibit. The fact that the Bill states that the Secretary of State shall exercise the powers only if he is satisfied does not make me feel any easier. I would prefer to see some further mechanism for appeal or redress under the same section.
	Subsection (14) goes on to state that regulations or orders shall be subject to annulment. I would rather see the positive process, not the negative one, but that is a detail, however important.
	In the explanatory notes to the Bill, paragraph 44 states rather optimistically:
	"It is not expected that the provisions of this Bill will have any impact on public finance or manpower requirements. There may be minor workload implications for the Patent Office".
	Well, I hope that that will be the case. Having said that, however, simply because I wanted to draw attention to the point, this may be one of those fairly rare occasions when, even if there were more than minor work load implications, the cause is so worthy and admirable that we might all readily agree that expenditure should be undertaken.
	With those few words, I add my support to the Bill and wish it well in its further stages.

David Wilshire: May I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Rachel Squire) on her good fortune? She has an opportunity that I, in my 14 years here, have never yet had. I am told that these experiences can be either frustrating or rewarding, and I very much hope that she will find her experience rewarding. It is sensible that we also congratulate the RNIB, which I am sure has done a great deal of work on the Bill. It does a huge amount of good in the community at large.
	Some private Members' Bills are exotic and some affect only a few people. I am clear, as I am sure other Members are, that this Bill is not exotic but very sensible, and it will affect the best part of 2 million people, who could most certainly benefit from its provisions. They are the sort of people who need whatever help we can give them. Help for those people currently depends on voluntary agreements, and clearly we should be grateful to those who have entered into those agreements. Having said that, although I, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), am a reluctant legislator, on this occasion it seems sensible to consolidate those voluntary agreements in law.
	It would be foolish to suggest that there are no difficulties ahead for the Bill. There are some very technical matters to be dealt with, and there are legal issues that will exercise minds far greater and more powerful than mine. It is important to make sure that when the Bill goes into Committee, as I hope it will, the concessions that we want to make are not abused. I am sure that that point will be addressed in Committee. It is essential that we do not lose sight of the need to protect copyright owners in the general run of things, and I am sure that the need for safeguards will be borne in mind. Those are issues of detail, and it would be entirely wrong to debate them today.
	There really is a need for the Bill. The only figures for a complete year that I have seen suggest that about 5 per cent. of books published in a year become available to people who need such help. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West pointed out that there are those, particularly in schools, who are reluctant to act ahead of legislation. I accept the need for the Bill. It is a sensible Bill, and it appears to have the support of those who own copyrights. My mailbag has been silent on these matters, and I take that to mean that no real opposition has been stirred up. The Bill seems to be non-controversial. I congratulate the hon. Lady on her good fortune, and I wish her Bill well.

David Heath: May I congratulate the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Rachel Squire) both on securing this opportunity and on introducing a Bill of such evident value? I also congratulate the RNIB, which I know has helped her in preparing the Bill.
	I speak on this matter in three capacities. First, in a personal capacity, I know what a difference the Bill will make to many people. Secondly, I speak in a professional capacity because, as some hon. Members will know, I practised as an optician for some years, so I recognise the difficulties that many partially sighted people face in everyday life. Thirdly, I speak in my capacity as the chairman of the recently constituted all-party group on eye care, which is a worthwhile venture. It would be incorrect of me to purport to speak for the group as a whole, but we have briefly discussed the Bill in our meetings, and I got a sense of very strong support for it from the membership and a wish for it to proceed.
	Blind and partially sighted people do not have a terribly good deal in this country, for all sorts of reasons. We do not pay adequate attention to the need for primary care in the first instance, and we do not pay sufficient attention to the acute phase in loss of sight and the possible interventions that can take place at hospital level. We certainly do not provide enough support in terms of the rehabilitation and equipment that partially sighted and blind people need in order to maintain their life following what is a very difficult event.
	Access to written material is a constant frustration, and is something that Members of Parliament probably do not address properly in our communications with our electorate. This Bill will go a long way to deal with one aspect of that. The difficulties of students in school and in college have already been mentioned. That is a real problem that is made worse by the otherwise wholly beneficial process of integration into mainstream schools and colleges, which do not, to the same extent, have specialist staff who know their way around the system and how to access it.
	This Bill will make a significant contribution to the well-being of blind and partially sighted people. I hope that the Government will be able to respond positively to it, and I hope that our contribution will be to make sure that it passes through the House without further delay.

Melanie Johnson: I am delighted to be here today to contribute to this valuable debate about the problems encountered by visually impaired people when they cannot read material that is protected by copyright in the format in which it has been published.
	The Government recognise that this issue needs to be addressed; indeed, we consulted on a possible way forward only last year. We recognised then that a solution to these problems lies at least in part in a change to copyright law. Copyright gives rights to creators, which allow them to control the use of their copyright material, including by making copies. The material that we are talking about is wide-ranging, as several hon. Members have said. It could be a book of fiction, a newspaper, a school textbook or an instruction manual for household equipment. It could even be a map or information about a job. I recently received a letter from the National Centre for Tactile Diagrams, which is based at the University of Hertfordshire in my constituency, which helped me to appreciate the wide range of copyright material that visually impaired people may currently be unable to use because it is presented in a format that is inaccessible to them. In addition, that lack of access plays a part in the exclusion of blind and partially sighted people from the cultural, social and educational life of the country.
	In general, when copyright material has only been produced in a format that a visually impaired person cannot read or see, the copyright owner's permission must be sought before it can be put into an accessible format such as large print, Braille, audio tape or—when it is graphic material—a tactile representation. Many copyright owners give that permission, but there can be delays in getting it—sometimes very long delays—as my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Rachel Squire) said. That is why we started looking at a new exception to copyright that would allow these alternative formats to be produced in some circumstances without infringing copyright, and therefore without the need to seek permission.
	An inability to access copyright material can give rise to problems for visually impaired people in many situations—in school, in the home and at work. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West gave several telling examples of the problems that disabled people currently face. As I have already mentioned, visual impairment could be one of the factors leading to social exclusion. A visually impaired person may not be able to study the necessary material to gain a qualification or to read the information that they need to take a full part in ordinary life, including in the workplace. I therefore congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West on choosing this worthy subject for her private Member's Bill. I appreciate that it is the culmination of much hard work by her and by the Royal National Institute for the Blind. It also has a formidable degree of support outside the House, as she has detailed.
	Copyright law already contains a number of exceptions to copyright covering situations in which it would not always be reasonable or feasible to get copyright clearance. The balance in copyright law between the interests of the users of copyright material and of those who create it is extremely important, as several hon. Members have recognised in their contributions to this debate. Those—including visually impaired people—who cannot always do what they would like with copyright material can and do argue for exceptions to copyright. That is what we are considering in this debate. However, we must ensure that exceptions are fair to copyright owners as well as to users, so it is important to understand why we have copyright protection.
	In general, copyright underpins and enhances our creative industries, which play a key role in bringing us the information and the resources that we need to participate in and benefit from the knowledge economy. The Government, therefore, welcome the very positive contribution made by the creative industries to the economy and value very highly the individual contributions of many authors and composers. Copyright provides the mechanisms for these industries and creators to protect—and be rewarded for—their skill and investment in bringing us new products. Protecting creativity and providing the mechanisms for creativity to be rewarded are vital if the creative industries and authors are to continue being successful in producing high-quality material for the benefit of us all.
	Copyright protection remains crucial, and that is especially true where the very success of the information society has led to many people believing that the material that others have created can be copied freely. Such issues go well beyond the subject of this debate, but it is important to stress those points because some people here may think that there are easier solutions to the problems faced by visually impaired people than those contained in the Bill. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West emphasised, the Bill quite rightly takes into account the very real needs and rights of copyright owners too.
	Moreover, I want to acknowledge the considerable efforts that have recently been made by the publishing sector and authors to listen and respond to the needs of visually impaired people. I know that some copyright owners believe that voluntary solutions to copyright problems could continue to develop to provide all the solutions that visually impaired people need. I want to encourage the dialogue to continue, but I do not believe that voluntary solutions will provide all that is needed to overcome difficulties with copyright clearances. That is why the Government were still working towards new exceptions to copyright in this area before this Bill was proposed.
	I am pleased, therefore, that my hon. Friend has brought this Bill before the House. Its intention is to deliver two distinct but complementary exceptions to copyright that, in principle, we can support. It provides a fair balance between the needs of visually impaired people and the interests of copyright owners. Visually impaired people and organisations working on their behalf will be able to act under the exceptions to provide alternative formats of copyright material that are needed to allow visually impaired people to read copyright material. However, copyright owners will have the ability to monitor what is happening to their material and obtain copyright royalties for this in circumstances where their interests might otherwise be prejudiced. That is an important balance and I know that it is one that the House will wish to maintain.
	I am delighted to confirm, therefore, that this worthwhile Bill has the Government's support. I am happy to learn that the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) and other hon. Members support the Bill. As the hon. Gentleman said, amendments might be necessary and the Committee will have to consider the detail of the exceptions that may be required at a later stage. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West said, the Bill is about access and opportunity for many visually impaired people and about enabling them to have the opportunities that many of us take for granted. I therefore look forward to the Bill being debated in detail at later stages.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).

FOOD LABELLING BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [2 November], That the Bill be now read a Second time.

David Wilshire: A few moments ago, a piece of paper was shoved in my face and I was told that I appeared to be the Member on the Front Bench responsible for saying something about the Bill. That was not something that I had expected. In 14 years, no one has let me anywhere near the Dispatch Box. The circumstances in which I suddenly find myself are fascinating. If I had the time, there is a great deal that I could usefully say about the Bill, but the difficulty in which I find myself—
	It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
	Debate to be resumed on Friday 12 April.

FIREARMS (REPLICA WEAPONS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.
	To be read a Second time on Friday 21 June.

SEX DISCRIMINATION (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.
	To be read a Second time on Friday 2l June.

CONTROL OF FIREWORKS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.
	To be read a Second time on Friday 21 June.

LONDON UNDERGROUND

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Stringer.]

Edward Davey: In this short debate I want to review the current consultation on the public-private partnership for London Underground. I want to show that that consultation is inadequate and that that inadequacy will mean that London Underground will have to allow a second consultation period in due course.
	Moreover, I want to show that it was the incompetence of the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions that led to that bungling. I believe that this latest example of the Minister's incompetence is yet another reason for him to resign. If a Transport Secretary cannot even organise a consultation process competently, what faith can the House have in his competence to turn round Britain's failing transport system?
	If time allows, I also want to bring new evidence to the House that, contrary to statements by the Secretary of State for Transport that this deal does not represent the privatisation of London Underground, it is now clear from detailed analysis of the legal documents linked to PPP that London Underground's key assets are indeed being transferred to the private sector in all meaningful senses. Therefore, on a key policy objective the Government have gone back on their commitments to the House.
	We are only just beginning to learn the full horror of the tube deal with which the Government wish to saddle Londoners; a deal that will not bring the transport improvements that we all so desperately want, and a deal that is so self-evidently such bad value for money for the taxpayer that the Government are afraid of publishing information to enable everyone to become aware of that fact.
	I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to your colleagues, for the opportunity to debate this key issue for Londoners and for the country. The Government have sought to deny Parliament the debate. The Transport Committee, in its recent report published on 7 March, concluded:
	"It is essential that the Government allows Members a debate and vote in the House of Commons on a substantive motion on the future of the London Underground and the PPP."
	However, the Government have refused such a debate. The all-party early-day motion 914 also calls for a debate on the consultation on PPP, yet the Government still refuse. What are they afraid of? I am particularly grateful to the Chair for allowing this debate, and only sad that it is merely an Adjournment debate on a Friday afternoon.
	What is happening in the consultation process? Under the Greater London Authority Act 1999, London Underground Ltd. has a legal duty to consult the Mayor and Transport for London, apparently for 20 days. The Secretary of State for Transport said that that consultation period began on 7 February when he made his statement to the House. What has happened since then?
	Lawyers from Transport for London, the legal team of Ken Livingstone and Bob Kiley, have since then been encamped in the so-called bid room based on the 11th floor of the Albany house offices of London Underground. Under the strictest rules of confidentiality, that team has crawled all over the legal agreements so far negotiated between London Underground and the Government and the three final bidders, the private sector infracos.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) and I paid a visit to that bid room yesterday. We were prevented from reading most of the documentation, but we were able to take a look at the key agreement, schedule 1.9, more of which later. We were also able to talk to a key London Underground negotiator, Martin Callaghan, and the head of TFL's legal team, Stephen Powell. It is on the basis of information so gleaned, plus the excellent reports by the Transport Committee that I can make my case today.
	The first part of my case is that the current consultation process does not meet the legal obligations of London Underground to consult Transport for London. Why? The documents that TFL is being shown are incomplete; some of them contain serious omissions. Moreover, TFL's legal team is still waiting for documents that it has requested but which London Underground has so far failed to provide. The original consultation period was due to have been completed by 8 March, but when TFL threatened London Underground with legal action because it had failed to meet so many of its requests for documents, London Underground was forced to extend the consultation period to 22 March.
	Yet even now, only five business days away from the end of consultation, TFL is still awaiting documents. Are they crucial documents? Is TFL asking for unnecessary things? Who knows? However, as TFL is the body that this House has charged with the job of oversight of the final documents, surely it should be given the benefit of the doubt and receive enough time to look at them. That is the interpretation that I would expect a court to make. Unless and until TFL has completed full oversight of final documents, the statutory consultation process cannot be considered finished.
	If the Minister questions my interpretation, he should contact London Underground. I understand that it has already accepted in principle that a further round of consultation will have to take place, for the very reason that I allege: the documents currently being scrutinised by TFL are not complete. That begs a key question for this debate: why did the Transport Secretary trigger consultation on 7 February when the documents were clearly not ready for statutory consultation? Did he effectively mislead Parliament by triggering the consultation, or was it incompetence on his part?
	There is another piece of crucial evidence to consider: the letter from Sir Malcolm Bates, chairman of London Underground, to the Secretary of State, dated 6 February—the day before consultation was triggered. Yesterday, I saw for myself a copy of the letter in the bid room. I was not allowed to bring the letter out of the bid room, but I did manage to transcribe it word for word. I will shortly read the House relevant extracts from my notes. However, the key message of the Bates letter to the Secretary of State is this: "You are acting too hastily; wait—we are not ready." Yet the Secretary of State, who had already started spinning his intention to make a statement to the press, decided to go ahead, against the advice of the boss of London Underground, who was responsible for the negotiations.
	Sir Malcolm Bates's letter is entitled "Value for Money Assessment of the PPP". He writes that
	"the bid prices are not contractually committed"
	and goes on to state:
	"There are a number of areas where we know they will reduce, as a result of technical adjustments. There is also drafting to be finally settled, especially in periodic review."
	Anyone who knows anything about the agreement knows that the periodic review is crucial. The letter continues:
	"The only competitive leverage left at this stage is that the bidders do not know their individual positions against the Public Sector Comparator.
	For this reason, London Underground had decided that the published version of the Assessment Report should show the financial comparators in aggregate, not in detail. We would have intended to release the full figures only once the agreements were signed, towards the end of March."
	The letter also states:
	"I have been informed by your officials that you intend to publish the Ernst and Young Report in full, which will include the comparators for the individual competitions, despite my strong representations. I have told your officials that we think this will damage the public sector's interest during the remainder of the competition. "
	The letter says that it is felt that there is little alternative but to publish alongside the Ernst and Young report a full version of London Underground's report. Sir Malcolm says that he wanted the Secretary of State to be aware of the risks that follow. He concludes by saying:
	"Obviously we will do our best to mitigate any damage."
	Why did the Secretary of State jeopardise the negotiating position of the public sector? Why did he ignore those "strong representations"?
	We have on record some explanation given by the Secretary of State himself when he was questioned in the Select Committee on 6 March. I refer to the uncorrected evidence of the hearing, which is available on the internet. He said:
	"I was very clear, and I think I gave a commitment to this Committee, that I would publish the Ernst and Young report. I took the view that there was nothing in the Ernst and Young report that would compromise the negotiations that Sir Malcolm Bates was involved in."
	We should note that that is in direct and complete contrast to what Sir Malcolm wrote. The Secretary of State then tried to suggest that the lack of finality in the contracts was due to the consultation process. That is a tempting argument, but of course he would say that because the documents were being consulted on. In any case, it is again in direct contrast to what Sir Malcolm wrote. His letter makes it clear that there were several issues in the contracts yet to be determined and completely unconnected with the consultation process.
	The Secretary of State's final defence in the Committee was that he had a duty to the House to report the Ernst and Young analysis. But in so doing, did he have to prejudice the competition in the PPP, which is designed to get better value for money? Did he have to trigger consultation on incomplete documents, so rendering it inadequate and incomplete, and thereby falling short of the statutory requirement?
	I contend that the Secretary of State's judgment was seriously flawed. Far from speeding up the process of the PPP and pushing ahead with the Government's plans for London Underground, he has, by his inactions, caused even more delays and confusion. The whole consultation process will have to be undertaken again. I have no confidence in a Minister who cannot even get such simple, basic judgments right. In my opinion he should go.
	Before I conclude on the consultation process, I want to share with the House and the public at large some of the more disturbing findings that have emerged from the work of the TFL legal team, especially in a document called schedule 1.9, which is part of a whole mountain of documents dealing with the PPP arbitrator—the regulator, as it were, for the PPP deal. In 1999, when the then Minister responsible, the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson), introduced in Standing Committee the concept of the PPP arbitrator, I told her that it would cause trouble, and it has. The negotiators have put into schedule 1.9 all the difficult issues that they could not resolve in the rest of the documentation, including equity rates of return, the extent of risk transfer and the process for terminating the contracts.
	Most significantly, much of schedule 1.9 has yet to be agreed. In other words, key parameters of the whole deal have yet to be finalised. How can Ernst and Young, London Underground or the Secretary of State have made any assessment of value for money when such key issues have not been finalised? It beggars belief. Worse still, what has been negotiated of the half-negotiated schedule 1.9 is extremely disturbing. We find that the risks of cost overruns have not been properly transferred to the infracos—they have been capped—so the public sector is not properly protected from them. Furthermore, the ability of the public sector to terminate contracts at a reasonable price is extremely limited. In normal circumstances, they will be almost impossible for TFL to get out of.
	The Select Committee picked up on that in paragraph 10 of its report, which bears rereading. It states:
	"We are also concerned that there is no Public Interest Termination clause in the contracts. Ernst and Young stated in their review for the Secretary of State that:
	'In our view, it would be a lower risk option for London Underground to have an express right to seek voluntary termination with an agreed mechanism in line with the Treasury Taskforce Guidance. In particular, the obligation on the PPP contractor to act reasonably and mitigate costs would improve the value for money of the termination and enhance London Underground's negotiating leverage throughout the contract.'"
	The Committee concludes:
	"The decision to proceed with an experimental contract structure without the inclusion of a Public Interest Termination clause is difficult to justify, does not follow Treasury Taskforce Guidance and seems likely to compromise further value for money."
	That is a damning indictment. The contracts will tie the hands of future democratically elected Governments; they will not be able to say, "This deal is bad value for money. It is not delivering what we want, and we want to end it in the public interest." That goes completely against the lessons learned from PPP and PFI elsewhere. It hands all the negotiating power to the infracos.
	I want to issue a challenge to the Minister. As London Underground yesterday felt able to allow my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington and me to read schedule 1.9 without signing a confidentiality agreement, will he publish the document to allow for public scrutiny, and if not, why not?
	There are even more serious reasons why the Government should do that. If the Minister will not publish the documents, I shall ask London Underground to let me enter that room and transcribe them, and we shall see how the public react to that.
	The Government are trying to avoid debate on this issue and to avoid publishing the documents because the PPP does not meet one of their key political objectives: not to privatise London Underground. The PPP as currently negotiated and under consultation—albeit inadequate consultation—amounts to the privatisation of London Underground's major assets. Despite Ministers' claims and protestations, which we shall no doubt hear repeated today, London's tube is being flogged off. One need only consider the definition of privatisation used by PricewaterhouseCoopers, the company retained by London Underground as its principal adviser on PPP:
	"The transfer of services and/or assets, either on a permanent or finite basis from state to private sector operation and/or ownership".
	This is how the Health and Safety Executive, an independent body, describes version 3.1 of the PPP on its website:
	"Under the terms of the PPP, London Underground's infrastructure, rolling stock and stations will be owned and improved by three PPP infrastructure companies."
	Those were not my words or those of the Select Committee.
	We find a further definition in the contract details. In the April 2000 asset transfer scheme, a legal agreement that sets out how the assets of the tube will go to the infracos, there is an important definition:
	"Where therefore an asset is referred to as being allocated to an Infraco, this means that the relevant Infraco is regarded as having ownership of the relevant asset under the terms of the PPP contract."
	Other parts of the contract show clearly that the private infracos will have ownership of all the assets for 30 years. Details of any handback to public sector ownership are sketchy, to say the least. The public sector's right to reacquire those assets is as yet theoretical. It is another Government objective gone wrong.
	This whole sorry saga is the most depressing I have had to watch unfold since I was first elected. It reminds me of the poll tax, in that political decisions at the very top of Government are being kept to in spite of all the evidence that they are wrong and all the experts demanding a total rethink, and despite analysis after analysis warning that this will be bad value for money and will create huge problems for London's underground system in the future.
	The current consultation period will in law have to be restarted before any final decision can be taken. I therefore implore the Government to stop this madness before they consign London to 30 years of an expensive, painful and crazy experiment.

Nick Raynsford: The Government very much welcome the opportunity to debate the future of London Underground. We would have preferred the debate to be conducted on a more rational and better-informed basis, but unfortunately the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) has revealed only too clearly in his comments that he does not understand the process and has not fully understood the information to which he has had access.

Edward Davey: rose—

Nick Raynsford: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman. He will wait for a while and I may consider giving way later. Having made an extremely intemperate and, in my view, mean-spirited attack, he should listen for a while to the Government's response.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned his visit to the bid room. At no point did he acknowledge the fact that I personally arranged for that visit after he expressed concern that he had not had that opportunity.

Edward Davey: rose—

Nick Raynsford: I have already told the hon. Gentleman that I will give way in due course. I ask him to contain himself for a little while. He has made some extremely ill-judged and ill-tempered remarks and he should listen carefully to my factual response.
	I arranged for the hon. Gentleman to have access to the information and to visit the bid room. It was an exceptional arrangement and I should have thought he might at least acknowledge that.
	The hon. Gentleman referred to the consultation process. He clearly does not understand that it is entirely in line with the procedures spelled out in the Greater London Authority Act 1999. If I recall correctly, he served on the Standing Committee that considered that Bill and should therefore be familiar with it. Our actions are entirely consistent with the requirements of that Act. There is no question of the consultation being conducted in any way other than in strict conformity with the requirements of the legislation.
	The hon. Gentleman quoted a letter from Malcolm Bates, totally misunderstanding it and presenting it as an argument for delaying the process. It was nothing of the sort. In that letter, Malcolm Bates reasonably expressed concern that public disclosure of certain information, as part of the consultation exercise, might make it more difficult for London Underground to secure the best possible deal in the public sector's interest.
	The Secretary of State—because he believed strongly that public consultation was paramount and that it was right that full public consultation should take place—insisted that the full Ernst and Young report should be made available. Did the hon. Gentleman, who has criticised the Government for not ensuring adequate consultation, give the slightest credit to my right hon. Friend for that decision? On the contrary, the hon. Gentleman tried to turn things around, in an extraordinary distortion of the facts, to criticise the Secretary of State for personally seeking to ensure the widest possible consultation.
	The hon. Gentleman's argument that the process is a privatisation is based on a complete misrepresentation of the facts. He is fully aware that London Underground continues to remain wholly responsible for running the underground. As I shall explain in the course of my remarks, the maintenance of the infrastructure will be conducted by the three infrastructure companies, under the partnership. To enable that to happen, they must have a lease on those assets for a period of time, but that is part of a partnership that will generate the huge investment necessary to transform the underground. That is very different from privatisation—it is public-private partnership.
	The arguments have gone on too long. Londoners are increasingly impatient with politicians—often ill-informed politicians—talking about the underground but not actually delivering results. Londoners want to see action. The plans that London Transport has developed, and on which it is consulting the Mayor and Transport for London, are designed to deliver the improvements that we all want to see. They are designed to deliver a safe, reliable, modern, clean and integrated system—and to do so more quickly than any alternative.
	The debate about the PPP has sadly been characterised by a huge amount of misinformation—much more than the hon. Gentleman has given us this afternoon. It is nonsense to suggest that there would be no real improvements for 10 or 12 years—as we have frequently heard during the past few weeks. There is no basis for that claim. No alternative plan would deliver so much so soon. For example, work would start straight away to end the speed restrictions currently causing delays to passengers on the Jubilee and Piccadilly lines. Work would start straight away to tackle the maintenance backlog and improve the reliability of the system. Work would also start straight away on a massive capital investment programme to modernise the infrastructure, covering signalling systems, new trains and increased capacity.
	At the end of the third review period, that investment would result in a wholly transformed system and one of which Londoners would be justly proud. However, we need to be sure that the plans for the transformation of the underground are the right ones. No final decisions have yet been taken, but in making those decisions we must consider the issues very carefully. That includes considering the opinions of others. That is why a consultation process is under way.
	The Mayor and Transport for London have had access to all the information that they need. The suggestion that they have been denied access to information is not justified. London Transport has extended the consultation period in response to TFL's requests, yet rather than giving credit for that, the hon. Gentleman only makes political capital from it—a typical example of the misinformation and distortion that he has brought to this debate.
	London Transport has provided staff not only to help TFL and its advisers assimilate and understand all the information, but to help the hon. Gentleman and others who have visited the bid room. His remarks about the unhelpful attitude of London Underground are not justified.
	When the Mayor and TFL respond to the consultation, London Transport will consider their comments very carefully. Only then will a final decision be made. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said that he would also welcome a public debate on the proposals. That is why everyone who is interested can see the financial reports that will inform his decisions. As I said, the Ernst and Young report has already been published, and London Underground has published its evaluation report in full. We are being as open as possible.
	The contracts are not yet finalised—of course, they cannot be until all the consultation responses have been considered. However, the Secretary of State has made it clear that if the contracts were to alter materially in a way that means they no longer represent good value for money, the plans will not proceed.
	There is some information that cannot be made public until this process has concluded, as we need to protect the public sector's ability to gain the best possible value for money. However, if the final decision is to proceed, the contracts would then be published in full and information would be fully available. Work to deliver a better tube could then begin by the summer.
	The plans would bring in new investment and expertise from the private sector, based on long-term commitments not just to provide the infrastructure but to maintain it and so guarantee an agreed standard of service. The contracts provide for the infrastructure companies to be paid according to those results, with incentives to optimise performance and penalties if standards fall as a result of the contractor's failure or inefficiency. That is in line with modern best-practice procurement—designed to ensure that we get value for money and that we get away from the sad experience of underground infrastructure contracts ending up late and seriously over budget time and again.
	I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman has not appreciated that the people of London fully understand the difference between the history of past investment—such as the Jubilee line, two years late with a 67 per cent. cost overrun—and the experience of public-private partnerships such as the docklands light railway extension to Lewisham, which was on budget, delivered early and highly successful. This issue is not about dogma; it is about what works. I saw a partnership of that kind work on the DLR and I believe that it would work on the tube.
	That is why the Government have made an unprecedented offer of substantial and sustained investment in the tube—£1 billion in each of the first eight years of the contracts—compared with an average of £320 million a year over the last decade. That is another point that was conveniently ignored by the hon. Gentleman in his tendentious speech. We make this offer because we are confident that these plans would deliver the results that passengers want—modern, reliable, attractive, clean and affordable tube travel.
	I am sure that the consultations will be worth while, but once they are complete, Londoners will expect us to stop arguing and start delivering a better underground for London.

Edward Davey: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: The Minister has sat down.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at three minutes to Three o'clock.